TexasCHLforum.com

While this just crossed my mind. I thought I'd throw this out. When talking to someone about why I'm following a paleo template for diet and exercise, the push back I've gotten from people, including a doctor, is that our paleo ancesters only lived to about 30 years old. Never mind those iceage people were more muscular and had more bone density, no sign of cavities, generally better health then the grain-based diet of neolithic people that followed them and who only averaged 20 years of age.

Here's a table of average life expectancy from the paleolithic to today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expe ... _over_time" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You have kids with acne?

this research paper was done in 1971: When the Eskimo Comes to Town.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22when ... yATS7YGIDA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
IIRC when doctors first encountered Eskimos they were eating a diet of 90% animals (fish, whales, seals, etc) and only about 10% plants. They reported a very low incidence of cancer. Within one generation of having western foods introduced - flour, corn, sugar - acne shows up in the kids. Today, Type 2 diabetes is epidemic among Eskimos.

this paper sites When the Eskimo Comes to Town
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nei ... 000000.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
KEYPOINTS
• Acne prevalence varies substantially between populations and is low in non-Westernised societies consuming traditional diets.
• A unifying feature of traditional diets is low glycaemic load.
• High-glycaemic-load diets have recently been implicated in acne aetiology due to their ability to affect insulin demand, androgen bioavailability and insulin-like growth factor-I activity.
• The beneficial results of a low-glycaemic-load diet on acne observed in a recent trial require confirmation in larger studies


Oh, and growth factor-I (IGF-1) is implicated in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome among young women.


Anybody having gone bald (or losing hair) around their crown, aka vetex balding? IGF-1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10827403" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Abstract
BACKGROUND:

A recent report suggested that men with vertex balding have higher levels of plasma insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). The association of its major carrier protein, insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3), with male pattern hair loss has not been examined.
OBJECTIVE:

We evaluated the relations of plasma concentrations of IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 with vertex balding in middle-aged and elderly men.
METHODS:

Participants were 431 male members of the Health Professionals Follow-up Study who responded to a question in 1992 on their hair pattern at 45 years of age and who were 47 to 81 years old when they provided a blood specimen in 1993-1994. Odds ratios (ORs) of vertex balding associated with IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 were estimated from logistic regression models mutually adjusting for each other and controlling for age at blood draw.
RESULTS:

Of the 431 men, 128 had vertex balding at age 45. Compared with men who were not balding, for a 1 standard deviation increase in plasma IGF-1 level (72.4 ng/mL), the OR for vertex balding was 1. 31 (95% CI, 0.95-1.81). For a 1 standard deviation increase in plasma IGFBP-3 (957 ng/mL), the OR for vertex balding was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.44-0.88).
CONCLUSION:

Older men with vertex balding have lower circulating levels of IGFBP-3 and higher levels of IGF-1 when controlling for IGFBP-3 level.

Genetics plays a big part in our health and effects of diet.

If anyone is interested, Christopher McDougall wrote a book about the Tarahumaras,"Born to Run". Ive read it a few times. Very interesting.

For the benefit of some who may not be familiar: the Leadville Ultramarathon (100 miles) is a race that starts at 10,000 feet in the thin air of the Rockie Mountains and reaches elevations of 12,500 feet. A 55 year old Tarahumara won it with a time (as memory recalls) less than 18 hours.

The Men Who Live Forever
In the hills of Mexico, a tribe of Indians carries an ancient secret: a diet and fitness regimen that has allowed them to outrun death and disease. We set out to discover how the rest of us can catch up

This tribe may be one of the most ancient cultures on the planet, but, as I discovered in my preexpedition research, its members actually have a lot in common with the average American guy.

Tarahumara men have a taste for corn snacks and beer, for instance. They're hard workers, but come downtime, they party like a rap star's roadies. According to one of the few outsiders to witness a tesguinada--a full-on Tarahumara rave--women were ripping the tops off each other in a bare-breasted wrestling match, while their husbands watched in glassy-eyed, drunken paralysis. Tarahumara men love sports, booze, and gambling so much, they'll stay up all night to watch a game, down enough beer in a year to spend every third day buzzed or recovering, and support their teams by literally betting the shirts on their backs.

Sound familiar? But here's where American and Tarahumara men part company: Many of us will be killed by heart disease, stroke, and gastrointestinal cancers. Almost none of them will.

None.

When it comes to the top 10 health risks facing American men, the Tarahumara are practically immortal: Their incidence rate is at or near zero in just about every category, including diabetes, vascular disease, and colorectal cancer. Age seems to have no effect on them, either: The Tarahumara runner who won the 1993 Leadville ultramarathon was 55 years old.

http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/men-who-live-forever

Nutrient calculations of daily intake were based upon food composition tables and some actual analyses of Tarahumara foods. The protein intake was ample, at 87 g, and generously met the FAO/WHO recommendations for daily intake of essential amino acids. Fat contributed only 12% of total calories, its composition being 2% saturated and 5% polyunsaturated with a P/S ratio of 2. The mean dietary cholesterol intake was very low, less than 100 mg/day, and the plant sterol intake was high, over 400 mg/day. Carbohydrate comprised 75 to 80% of total calories, mostly from starch. Only 6% of total calories were derived from simple sugars. The crude fiber intake was high, 18 to 21 g/day. Salt consumption was moderately low, 5 to 8 g/day. The daily intakes of calcium, iron, vitamin A, ascorbic acid, thiamin niacin, riboflavin, and vitamin B6 exceeded or approximated the FAO/WHO recommendations. Thus, the simple diet of the Tarahumara Indians, composed primarily of beans and corn, provided a high intake of complex carbohydrate and was low in fat and cholesterol. Their diet was found to be generally of high nutritional quality and would, by all criteria, be considered antiatherogenic.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/4/ ... ion_detail

Tracker wrote:While this just crossed my mind. I thought I'd throw this out. When talking to someone about why I'm following a paleo template for diet and exercise, the push back I've gotten from people, including a doctor, is that our paleo ancesters only lived to about 30 years old. Never mind those iceage people were more muscular and had more bone density, no sign of cavities, generally better health then the grain-based diet of neolithic people that followed them and who only averaged 20 years of age.

Here's a table of average life expectancy from the paleolithic to today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expe ... _over_time" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When Neolithic man became a grain eater instead of a hunter-gatherer roughly 10,000 years ago, average life expectancy dropped dramatically and humans immediately lost 8 inches in height. What killed people back then were acute infections and accidents. However, if they survived childhood, they could live every bit as long as today's humans. However, they remained fit and active, not crippled by the chronic diseases of civilization.

I agree with you l, Jim, the hat genetics plays a factor. Information figure my genes aren't that different from my European hunter/gatherer ancestors but epeginetics plays a big part in how those genes express themselves. I've seen research speculation about that people who seem to get fat more easily is their body attempting to protect itself from metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes, that skinny people with metabolic syndrome have a greater incidence of type 2.

Jumping Frog wrote:

Tracker wrote:While this just crossed my mind. I thought I'd throw this out. When talking to someone about why I'm following a paleo template for diet and exercise, the push back I've gotten from people, including a doctor, is that our paleo ancesters only lived to about 30 years old. Never mind those iceage people were more muscular and had more bone density, no sign of cavities, generally better health then the grain-based diet of neolithic people that followed them and who only averaged 20 years of age.

Here's a table of average life expectancy from the paleolithic to today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expe ... _over_time" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When Neolithic man became a grain eater instead of a hunter-gatherer roughly 10,000 years ago, average life expectancy dropped dramatically and humans immediately lost 8 inches in height. What killed people back then were acute infections and accidents. However, if they survived childhood, they could live every bit as long as today's humans. However, they remained fit and active, not crippled by the chronic diseases of civilization.

Yes, and the question the medical physiologists should be asking is "why" That observation from the skeletal data is populations n statistics too, epidemiology, but one that is based upon evolutionary biology. I spent some time taking classes in primitive skills when my son was in the Boy Scouts. He got into Survivorman. So we spent months training. It was a lot of fun learning. One of the things I learned is just how little starch there was to gather. Acorns/nuts was the easiest in the way of anything close to starchy foods. Cattail root flour was slightly sweet but you spent more energy trying to harvest and process the stuff. It's a lot easier and more time efficient to hunt and fish for calories and brows are for leafy greens.

Jumping Frog wrote:

Tracker wrote:While this just crossed my mind. I thought I'd throw this out. When talking to someone about why I'm following a paleo template for diet and exercise, the push back I've gotten from people, including a doctor, is that our paleo ancesters only lived to about 30 years old. Never mind those iceage people were more muscular and had more bone density, no sign of cavities, generally better health then the grain-based diet of neolithic people that followed them and who only averaged 20 years of age.

Here's a table of average life expectancy from the paleolithic to today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expe ... _over_time" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When Neolithic man became a grain eater instead of a hunter-gatherer roughly 10,000 years ago, average life expectancy dropped dramatically and humans immediately lost 8 inches in height. What killed people back then were acute infections and accidents. However, if they survived childhood, they could live every bit as long as today's humans. However, they remained fit and active, not crippled by the chronic diseases of civilization.

T
Your theory sounds good but there is no proof of your assertions from 10000 years ago. This thread is interesting but there are a million theories on eating and most theories have doctors tha will back them up.

mrvmax wrote:Your theory sounds good but there is no proof of your assertions from 10000 years ago. This thread is interesting but there are a million theories on eating and most theories have doctors tha will back them up.

Since the year 2000, PubMed lists over over 20,000 studies published on Paleo and low carb eating as compared to the current "standard American diet" as summarized by the USDA food pyramid. The scientific evidence is becoming overwhelming. . .

mrvmax wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

Tracker wrote:While this just crossed my mind. I thought I'd throw this out. When talking to someone about why I'm following a paleo template for diet and exercise, the push back I've gotten from people, including a doctor, is that our paleo ancesters only lived to about 30 years old. Never mind those iceage people were more muscular and had more bone density, no sign of cavities, generally better health then the grain-based diet of neolithic people that followed them and who only averaged 20 years of age.

Here's a table of average life expectancy from the paleolithic to today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expe ... _over_time" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When Neolithic man became a grain eater instead of a hunter-gatherer roughly 10,000 years ago, average life expectancy dropped dramatically and humans immediately lost 8 inches in height. What killed people back then were acute infections and accidents. However, if they survived childhood, they could live every bit as long as today's humans. However, they remained fit and active, not crippled by the chronic diseases of civilization.

T
Your theory sounds good but there is no proof of your assertions from 10000 years ago. This thread is interesting but there are a million theories on eating and most theories have doctors tha will back them up.

While I understand your thoughts, there is also an evolution on diet as technology advances. There are simply more capabilities to study the body and it's reaction to various input. And I agree that most every thing someone is selling (diet's, supplements, juicers, blenders, workout programs) has a doctor's endorsement. Why? Money and because they all work to some extent. But things that were bad years ago (such as eggs) are suddenly OK again in moderation.

The thing that I'm seeing about Paleo is that it closely follows other diets that have been proven healthy for years. While the doctor I'm seeing promotes Paleo, I don't see that she pushes Paleo exclusively. She is doing lots of testing to find out exactly what my body has issues with. Milk. Wheat. Sugar. Etc. Then will develop a plan according to that. But, as I have been eating more towards a Paleo diet, I am seeing positive results in some areas, but I'm not fully seeing all that I'd like to see. For example, I feel tired all the time - but that could also be because of a heart issue.

Also, beyond general health, I have a particular personal sensitivity to dietary issues. My first wife died when she was 39 years old. She had stomach cancer that was most likely environmentally induced by some type of food consumption. In the movie "Erin Brockovich" (which was based on a true story), the people she defended had stomach cancer from their water. Nitrates and nitrates used in lunch meat type products are also tied to stomach cancer. Since she was diagnosed, I've tried to avoid possible carcinogens that could make my children at risk for the same disease just in case they are genetically predisposed to it. I am not "full tilt all organic" but feel there is a place for it. My current wife thinks I'm nuts for avoiding anything at all, so buys whatever is cheapest. During my late wife's 4 year battle, we were told about countless ways for her to be cured (special water, certain foods, certain prayers, etc.), which left me generally skeptical of a lot of things - especially things like a miracle berry with healing properties. Now, I'm having chronic problems that appear to be inflammation related and possibly food related, so my interest has been renewed as I try to determine what's causing my issues. I would be still be skeptical of a single 'super food' but can see where overall diet could have a significant role. I'm hoping my issues are as simple as that and not something more sinister.

Yes genetics play a role but obese people tend to use it as an excuse to their poor health while eating a supersize big Mack meal. Obesety runs in my family as well but I refuse to let myself surcum to it. Moderation, proper diet, and exercise are key. I have a terrible sweet tooth so I use fruit to calm my craving. I love food especially fast food and it takes self control to keep from stuffing my face. This is something obese and overweight people (including my family) seems to lack. Calories in, calories out. It's a tough road but it's worth it to stay healthy.

mrvmax wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

Tracker wrote:While this just crossed my mind. I thought I'd throw this out. When talking to someone about why I'm following a paleo template for diet and exercise, the push back I've gotten from people, including a doctor, is that our paleo ancesters only lived to about 30 years old. Never mind those iceage people were more muscular and had more bone density, no sign of cavities, generally better health then the grain-based diet of neolithic people that followed them and who only averaged 20 years of age.

Here's a table of average life expectancy from the paleolithic to today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expe ... _over_time" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When Neolithic man became a grain eater instead of a hunter-gatherer roughly 10,000 years ago, average life expectancy dropped dramatically and humans immediately lost 8 inches in height. What killed people back then were acute infections and accidents. However, if they survived childhood, they could live every bit as long as today's humans. However, they remained fit and active, not crippled by the chronic diseases of civilization.

T
Your theory sounds good but there is no proof of your assertions from 10000 years ago. This thread is interesting but there are a million theories on eating and most theories have doctors tha will back them up.

There is no one paleo diet that can be pulled to say this is the correct way to eat, and paleo researchers admit that . What is evidenced is that 10,000 ago nobody was eating grains...at least not in any quantity. Grain based diets began about the time the ice age ended. That's when metate grinding stones really begin to the record. Metates were used for grinding pigments, too.

I wouldn't even call archeological data a theory. It's simply a starting point, a hypothesis, that then needs to be tested with biochemistry blood work. If you go back to my OP and watch the Peter Attia MD you'll see how little doctors are taught in the way of nutrition and how frustrating it was for him. The same with Dr Matt Lalonde, PhD biochemistry.

Matt Lalonde is a Harvard biochemist who did his doctorate thesis on his, then, vegetarian diet. When he really started digging into the nutritional litterateur he realized that the guidelines weren't based on "hard sciences" such as chemistry In a 6 hour lecture that I bought on line that he didn't he specifically says about all this epidemiology stuff "I don't call this stuff science."

So what does Lalonde mean, and Attia shows the same thing in my link to OP link? there is a range of LDL cholesterol. It ranges from VLDL to Pattern "B" LDL to Pattern "A" LDL. Pattern A doesn't appear to be associated with cardiovascular diseases. VLDL and Pattern B, however, do appear to be associated with it.

Saturated fat will raise Pattern A LDL. Saturated fat does not raise Pattern B and VLDL. Saturated fat also raises HDL in the blood. In that lecture Lalonde said he has colleges in the pharmaceutical business that's love to come up with a drug that raises HDL, "saturated fat does it nicely."

So what raises VLDL, Pattern B, and Triglycerides in the blood? Carbohydrates and sugars. And there's a corresponding effect of lowering HDL. Lalonde explained how that happens but I can't.

In that Peter Attia youtube link, Attia aruges that your triglicerides to HDL ratio is a 4 fold better indicator of heart disease than total LDL and, I think, total cholesterol. If you have low triglycerides and high HDL your Pattern B LDL will be low too.

While I find the anthropology stuff compelling in that is simplifies diet and exercise for the average person I want to know if diet (esp.) and exercise can be backed up with biochemistry.

nightmare69 wrote:Yes genetics play a role but obese people tend to use it as an excuse to their poor health while eating a supersize big Mack meal. Obesety runs in my family as well but I refuse to let myself surcum to it. Moderation, proper diet, and exercise are key. I have a terrible sweet tooth so I use fruit to calm my craving. I love food especially fast food and it takes self control to keep from stuffing my face. This is something obese and overweight people (including my family) seems to lack. Calories in, calories out. It's a tough road but it's worth it to stay healthy.

I found, and others too, that once I got adapted to going without grains and sugars my cravings dropped. I now have zero cravings for cokes. While I noticed the difference the first month it actually took me about 3 months to fully adapt. Where I used to never skipped breakfast, today I might eat it once or twice per week. That whole argument that breakfast is the most important meal of the day was a marketing tool by breakfast cereal companies.

Breakfast: Not Really the Most Important Meal of the Day
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-bera ... 36439.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Breakfast: Not Really the Most Important Meal of the Day
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/0 ... 10054.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So much of what we think we know about breakfast boils down to the age-old assumption that it's the most important meal of the day. But chances are, the origins of the phrase -- of dare we say breakfast's entire reputation -- come from a surprising place.

"n many ways, the breakfast is the most important meal of the day, because it is the meal that gets the day started," Lenna F. Cooper, bull, writes in a 1917 issue of Good Health, the self-proclaimed "oldest health magazine in the world" edited by none other than Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, the co-inventor of flaked cereal. "It should not be eaten hurriedly, and all the family, so far as possible, should partake of it together. And above all, it should be made up of easily digested foods, and balanced in such a way that the various food elements are present in the right proportions. It should not be a heavy meal, consisting of over five to seven hundred calories," Cooper's article continues.

Granted, Kellogg did hold an M.D. degree, but there's no denying he had a product to sell.

Dr. Peter Attia: Readdressing Dietary Guidelines

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhzV-J1h0do" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhzV-J1h0do[/video]

nightmare69 wrote:Yes genetics play a role but obese people tend to use it as an excuse to their poor health while eating a supersize big Mack meal. Obesety runs in my family as well but I refuse to let myself surcum to it. Moderation, proper diet, and exercise are key. I have a terrible sweet tooth so I use fruit to calm my craving. I love food especially fast food and it takes self control to keep from stuffing my face. This is something obese and overweight people (including my family) seems to lack. Calories in, calories out. It's a tough road but it's worth it to stay healthy.

I somewhat, no, probably a whole lot, disagree.

I dont want to get into a long drawn out narrative, so in short, discipline certainly plays some part, but you disparage many who are obese due to poor metabolism or have hypothyroidism. Many obese people cannot drop weight as easily as some of us take for granted. Reduced eating does not always correlate with controlling obesity, rather the answer may be to gain weight by building lean muscle mass.

Genetics dictate where & how people process & store fat. Some store fat in the belly, some in the thighs and butt & some store little fat because they have metabolisms that burn calories as soon as it hits the gut.

Mitochondria are found in cells, especially in muscle cells, and they are the fuel burners. More muscle equals more mitochondria & thus, metabolism. Some people inherit large muscles and some dont. Women have problems with obesity due to their lack of muscle. In short how one's body processes those big super burgers, large fries & super sized soft drinks are directly due to genetics.

You would be surprised at the number of obese who cant drop weight because their body is in a famine state. Their body hoards fat & burns muscle instead (losing mitochondria!) It is a vicious cycle.... Stop eating, lose muscle, hoard fat...before too long the obese loses most of their ability to burn calories. Dieticians will advise some to eat more to stop the cycle and begin weight training.

Many obese have learned to eat from television commercials & many have diligently stuck to a program and saw little to no result. (diet coke, diet ice cream, diet peanut butter, etc.) Then they became frustrated and gave up.

In general the answer to controlling obesity is knowledge, discipline & motivation. We need to do a better job of teaching our children the principles of diet.

For anyone who is interested in learning more, or dropping weight, this site is very good. Very knowledgeable people will share their tips and experiences.

https://www.myfitnesspal.com/

Jim Beaux wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Yes genetics play a role but obese people tend to use it as an excuse to their poor health while eating a supersize big Mack meal. Obesety runs in my family as well but I refuse to let myself surcum to it. Moderation, proper diet, and exercise are key. I have a terrible sweet tooth so I use fruit to calm my craving. I love food especially fast food and it takes self control to keep from stuffing my face. This is something obese and overweight people (including my family) seems to lack. Calories in, calories out. It's a tough road but it's worth it to stay healthy.

I somewhat, no, probably a whole lot, disagree.

I dont want to get into a long drawn out narrative, so in short, discipline certainly plays some part, but you disparage many who are obese due to poor metabolism or have hypothyroidism. Many obese people cannot drop weight as easily as some of us take for granted. Reduced eating does not always correlate with controlling obesity, rather the answer may be to gain weight by building lean muscle mass.

Genetics dictate where & how people process & store fat. Some store fat in the belly, some in the thighs and butt & some store little fat because they have metabolisms that burn calories as soon as it hits the gut.

Mitochondria are found in cells, especially in muscle cells, and they are the fuel burners. More muscle equals more mitochondria & thus, metabolism. Some people inherit large muscles and some dont. Women have problems with obesity due to their lack of muscle. In short how one's body processes those big super burgers, large fries & super sized soft drinks are directly due to genetics.

You would be surprised at the number of obese who cant drop weight because their body is in a famine state. Their body hoards fat & burns muscle instead (losing mitochondria!) It is a vicious cycle.... Stop eating, lose muscle, hoard fat...before too long the obese loses most of their ability to burn calories. Dieticians will advise some to eat more to stop the cycle and begin weight training.

Many obese have learned to eat from television commercials & many have diligently stuck to a program and saw little to no result. (diet coke, diet ice cream, diet peanut butter, etc.) Then they became frustrated and gave up.

In general the answer to controlling obesity is knowledge, discipline & motivation. We need to do a better job of teaching our children the principles of diet.

For anyone who is interested in learning more, or dropping weight, this site is very good. Very knowledgeable people will share their tips and experiences.

https://www.myfitnesspal.com/

Some people suffer from medical conditions, the vast majority suffers from laziness and overeating.

http://authoritynutrition.com/12-graphs ... e-get-fat/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just eat right and exercise, for most it's that easy. Try a diet and exercise regime for more than a week before you blame genetics.