335 replies to this topic

[bgwowk]

Dr. Wowk, the argument paleo dieters use is that homo sapiens lived as hunter gatherers for at least an order of magnitude longer than they have lived as grain eaters, and thus evolved longer under those conditions.

If length of ancestral history epochs is to be the criterion, then our ancestors spent ten times longer eating uncooked meat than cooked meat, and ten times longer than that eating entirely other things, and so on, going back hundreds of millions of years. What aspects of metabolism have been conserved over the course of evolution can only be determined by present-day observation and measurement, not length of the period over which an adaption occurred. As an extreme example, the high incidence of hypertension among African Americans is believed to have evolved over only one generation because of the extreme circumstances of their ancestors' migration. An ancestry of 800,000 years as hunter-gathers and recent ancestry of 8000 years as agrarians in no way implies that metabolism will be better adapted to a hunter-gather diet (bearing in mind that what is "better" to evolution may not be what we want anyway). The high incidence of obesity and diabetes in people with little or no agrarian ancestry living in developed societies already tells us that the influence of agriculture on human evolution has been profound.

I have no doubt there has been some adaptation since then (some that might even confer more longevity) however, the basic metabolic processes are conserved across species and thus must be of some importance. Example: life extension through CR is similar through most organisms that have been tested. Intermittent fasting has also been shown to increase health parameters in many species.

Yes, the CR response has been confirmed *by testing* as conserved over many species, hence long evolutionary time. It seems to be something even more fundamental than diet since the difference in dietary composition of animals that exhibit the response is vast. It may be something as old and fundamental as the use of glucose itself as an energy transporter.

If despite agrarian ancestry we still have some metabolic adaptations that evolved during paleolithic times (or earlier) that make aspects of paleolithic diets favorable for longevity in the modern world, then we should certainly recognize that. However the presence of such adaptations can only be determined from observations of the present state of the human body. It does not follow a priori from evolutionary theory that because our distant ancestors ate in a certain way that eating that way maximizes our longevity. That's all I'm saying.

[Lazarus Long]

Even as hunter gatherers there is a common modern myth as to what that diet entailed and even more important, there is a factor associated with the experience of the feast/famine cycle that dates back many millions of years that I personally think has a lot more to do with why CR works than specific elements of the diet. Especially when we talk about how different species all the way down to flat worms can respond to CR.

The myth of the paleo diet is how much was protein and how much was a variety of fibers, carbs, and other substances from bone sucking and leaf chewing, to dirt.

First paleo man didn't just often eat uncooked meat they were carrion eaters, and second they offset the demand for protein not with just small game and fish but with insects. The idea of cooking meat was a wway to change the flavor and texture of carrion. Remember how even relatively modern hunter's cured game?

They let it hang around in a tree and rot a little to make it tender before cooking.

Actually insects are another very important source of Omega 3's that is going untapped in today's diet that were common in many diets until the last few centuries. Bugs made up a very large source of protein in the paleo diet, perhaps even more than the amount of animal meat on a regular basis.

Bugs were a target of opportunity and easy prey. Termites, ants, worms, grubs and maggots were very popular, even cooked. Why aren't these sources mentioned as important today if one wants consistency with the actual paleo diet?

[CobaltThoriumG]

Even as hunter gatherers there is a common modern myth as to what that diet entailed and even more important, there is a factor associated with the experience of the feast/famine cycle that dates back many millions of years that I personally think has a lot more to do with why CR works than specific elements of the diet. Especially when we talk about how different species all the way down to flat worms can respond to CR.

The myth of the paleo diet is how much was protein and how much was a variety of fibers, carbs, and other substances from bone sucking and leaf chewing, to dirt.

First paleo man didn't just often eat uncooked meat they were carrion eaters, and second they offset the demand for protein not with just small game and fish but with insects. The idea of cooking meat was a wway to change the flavor and texture of carrion. Remember how even relatively modern hunter's cured game?

They let it hang around in a tree and rot a little to make it tender before cooking.

Actually insects are another very important source of Omega 3's that is going untapped in today's diet that were common in many diets until the last few centuries. Bugs made up a very large source of protein in the paleo diet, perhaps even more than the amount of animal meat on a regular basis.

Bugs were a target of opportunity and easy prey. Termites, ants, worms, grubs and maggots were very popular, even cooked. Why aren't these sources mentioned as important today if one wants consistency with the actual paleo diet?

I agree and mentioned this before in a post. What could possibly be better to eat than a grub, yet very little discussion of this.

 untitled.JPG   41.44KB   16 downloads

[kenj]

I'm really interested to see the difference in inflammation marker tests in the high fat paleo diets vs a Kitavan type diet. That might be the final bullet telling us what is optimal for maximal longevity.

There's just so many examples of slim populations and cultures (the Kitavans being another I didn't know about) enjoying amazing health when eating lots of carbs in plant based diets, that it would be ignorant IMO to label carbs as the new poison, or whatever.. Sure, obese people may eat lotta carbs, but they also eat many fats, and proteins, and 'empty calories' (sugars, processed junk) and probably don't exercise that much, - so naturally the metabolism is sickened from the chronic food overload, and consequently insulin etc. do not work optimally.

Paleo style eating can help normalize body weight etc., but I think there's several examples of long-lived cultures in 'real life' showing us that in order to really slow aging, we need to restrict proteins and fats more than the paleo thing traditonally allow -- for example the lifespan of the people of Hunza even exceed the Okinawans, and they traditonally eat many raw vegetables and fruits (mulberries!), whole grains, nuts, milk products from goats, and occasionally small amounts of meat: these folks enjoy remarkably healthy lives into their 90' and 100's with no disease!
Plus, the planet would be better off if we cut down on the huge consumption of meats, but that's another story. ;-)

Edited by kenj, 22 January 2009 - 06:01 AM.

[kenj]

Tell the people of Abkhasia, Vilcabamba, and Hunza that carbs = aging:



From "Healthy at 100", p. 57.

Edited by kenj, 22 January 2009 - 06:11 AM.

[Forever21]

99% plant based diet. Reminds me of the Okinawans, Loma Linda Adventists, and Sardinians. Low methionine too.

Edited by Forever21, 22 January 2009 - 08:13 AM.

[TheFountain]

And I still have not heard a single case of a female on a paleo diet. Which leads me to the assumption that it is a very male-based ideological diet that conforms to certan personalities. Don't get me wrong I am being extremely open minded about this, I just want more evidence of its overall effectiveness for all people of all sizes, shapes and ehtnicities. Thus far only white males have espoused it. Which I find strange.

[AgeDefier]

Maybe the Paleo diet is one answer, but not the only one. Perhaps the conclusion is correct, in some cases, even if the logic is a little shaky in other cases.

Everybody seems to act like there must be ONE answer, ONE type of diet. But that seems counter-intuitive to me.

A diet can diminish certain conditions which contribute to aging but will not resolve or cure aging. Even the groups mentioned for longevity--having these amazing diets--They all die anyway.

Everybody has different conditions, and therefore a unique diet is needed for unique conditions. But this will just diminish certain factors of aging--not all.

Long-lived people have various diets which probably worked out good for their health needs. Communities of long-lived people (genetically similar) eat what fulfills their (genetically similar) needs.

Perhaps for people espeically sensitive to Carb intake, the Paleo diet works out to diminsh health concerns due to carb sensitivity.

But for others not sensitive to carb intake, who have other issues, they need a different diet.

[Prometheus]

Maybe the Paleo diet is one answer, but not the only one. Perhaps the conclusion is correct, in some cases, even if the logic is a little shaky in other cases.

Everybody seems to act like there must be ONE answer, ONE type of diet. But that seems counter-intuitive to me.

A diet can diminish certain conditions which contribute to aging but will not resolve or cure aging. Even the groups mentioned for longevity--having these amazing diets--They all die anyway.

Everybody has different conditions, and therefore a unique diet is needed for unique conditions. But this will just diminish certain factors of aging--not all.

Long-lived people have various diets which probably worked out good for their health needs. Communities of long-lived people (genetically similar) eat what fulfills their (genetically similar) needs.

Perhaps for people espeically sensitive to Carb intake, the Paleo diet works out to diminsh health concerns due to carb sensitivity.

But for others not sensitive to carb intake, who have other issues, they need a different diet.

enter nutrigenetics

[nowayout]

Does anyone know if there is fossil evidence indicating lifespan of paleolithic humans?

[Lazarus Long]

Does anyone know if there is fossil evidence indicating lifespan of paleolithic humans?

Of course there is, and a considerable amount. Bone growth/density is pretty easy to measure in terms of years even in fossils. Also the accumulation of specific elements acquired through nutrition, dental enamel growth/wear/health etc. These are not quite as precise as tree rings but remarkably accurate nonetheless. However we are at best taking a very small random and not generalized sample of the actual numbers of individuals alive at any specific period it is at best an inference.

Most average ages of mortality varied from 26 to about 36 with some periods up and down based on environmental factors and of course a few exceptions occasionally thrown in just to make things interesting.

I found a number of good articles on the subject but all that I could get direct access to online were the abstracts. Here they are though:

Demography of longevity: past, present, and future trends (2000)
http://www.sciencedi...bd56c10d938c1da

Longevity Among Hunter- Gatherers: A Cross-Cultural Examination
http://www3.intersci...l...=1&SRETRY=0

An interesting dental study on Amerindian peoples showing a mean age of about 35 when having good dental health and 30-31 when dental hypoplasia was more present.
http://adr.sagepub.c...int/3/2/265.pdf


This article is old but lays out the ground work of the problem well
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2740808


One of the clear trends is that life expectancy generally increases with the advance of technology.

This book describes recent trends but that is not relevant to the question specifically but is some good background.
http://books.google....result#PPA13,M1

BTW in reference to the previous comments this might be interesting

Insects as food among hunter-gatherers. Preview
By: Morris, Brian. Anthropology Today, Feb2008, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p6-8, 3p, 9 color;
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8322.2008.00558.x; (AN 28744971)

[JLL]

Tell the people of Abkhasia, Vilcabamba, and Hunza that carbs = aging:



From "Healthy at 100", p. 57.

This is very interesting. So how long do they live? What diseases do they die of? Are they tall and thin or short and pudgy?

[Prometheus]

Tell the people of Abkhasia, Vilcabamba, and Hunza that carbs = aging:



From "Healthy at 100", p. 57.

dont forget these 'long lived' cultures are not habitually inactive - an affliction common to all Western society, and that only a low carb/high protein diet can reduce disease incidence for..

[caston]

Don't forget the Okinawa diet.


http://en.wikipedia....ki/Okinawa_diet

[nowayout]

Does anyone know if there is fossil evidence indicating lifespan of paleolithic humans?

Of course there is, and a considerable amount. Bone growth/density is pretty easy to measure in terms of years even in fossils. Also the accumulation of specific elements acquired through nutrition, dental enamel growth/wear/health etc. These are not quite as precise as tree rings but remarkably accurate nonetheless. However we are at best taking a very small random and not generalized sample of the actual numbers of individuals alive at any specific period it is at best an inference.

Most average ages of mortality varied from 26 to about 36 with some periods up and down based on environmental factors and of course a few exceptions occasionally thrown in just to make things interesting.

So it seems the paleolithic lifestyle was actually quite bad for longevity. Furthermore, even if the diet was not the main reason for the early mortality, it only had to be good enough to take people up to the mortality age. So even if the diet in fact killed every survivor on their 45th birthday, it would have made little or no difference to human evolution during that period. In other words, the best we can say about the paleolithic diet from fossil evidence is that it will allow you to live for about 40 years, assuming you still have a paleolithic set of genes. As far as the diseases that show up after 40 are concerned (heart disease, cancer, etc.), the paleolithic diet might have been good or bad - it would have made no difference to paleolithic humans, and any evolutionary adaptations to said diet would have been indifferent to the effects of the diet on these diseases.

[Lazarus Long]

Tell the people of Abkhasia, Vilcabamba, and Hunza that carbs = aging:



From "Healthy at 100", p. 57.

dont forget these 'long lived' cultures are not habitually inactive - an affliction common to all Western society, and that only a low carb/high protein diet can reduce disease incidence for..

Dr Manhatten you have hit the nail on the head. Rather than be too preoccupied with what amounts to a nostalgic mythology, what we really need to do is figure out how to integrate and reconcile a modern lifestyle with the hunter gatherers near continuous level of activity. Such physical activity needs to be far more ubiquitous and less a consequence of just the gym, a few diversions, and maybe some dancing.

The argument is precisely about epigenetic factors, not just in terms of later life and infant/child/adolescent physiological development but maternal diet and prenatal activity. Recently some studies even include paternal diet and activity levels in the epigenetic analysis. These appear to have a far more statistically important and profound effect in terms of genetic switching than was ever thought possible under classic Darwinism.

Carbs in excess may have some deleterious effects and also individual genetics also play a part but nothing trumps activity as the most universally important factor. I really don't want to weigh in too heavily here on that issue because aside from toxins and excess in general, my opinion is that a balanced diet should not be seen only in terms of general nutritional terms but in terms of calories levels to activity.

The hunter/gatherers spent as much as 90% of their waking moments involved in hunting, foraging, processing, eating, defending or stealing their foraging/kills. They were running, walking, climbing, crawling, carrying, digging, pulling, fighting, stalking, trapping, etc almost from the moment they awoke from a relatively short sleep cycle till lights out brought them back to the fire for a nights activity of a shared meal, a good dance, and maybe a shared... well it couldn't exactly be called a bed though it is paleo-linguistically why we still say we *make* our bed each day.

We are omnivores genetically and I suspect our basic metabolism is far more robust and resilient in terms of its adaptability to what we eat and less so in terms of how we live.

[Kutta]

What I know about paleo diet is that actual lifespans and actual diets of paleolithic people have not much to do with it. It's more about the optimization - or an attempt to do so - of biomarkers and disease risks, regardless of any ideology behind it. The paleo train of thought is a mere tool in this attempt.

Of course conclusive evidence is not there, but if it's working (and it seems to be working) I don't really care about paleolithic people.

[Lazarus Long]

Does anyone know if there is fossil evidence indicating lifespan of paleolithic humans?

Of course there is, and a considerable amount. Bone growth/density is pretty easy to measure in terms of years even in fossils. Also the accumulation of specific elements acquired through nutrition, dental enamel growth/wear/health etc. These are not quite as precise as tree rings but remarkably accurate nonetheless. However we are at best taking a very small random and not generalized sample of the actual numbers of individuals alive at any specific period it is at best an inference.

Most average ages of mortality varied from 26 to about 36 with some periods up and down based on environmental factors and of course a few exceptions occasionally thrown in just to make things interesting.

So it seems the paleolithic lifestyle was actually quite bad for longevity. Furthermore, even if the diet was not the main reason for the early mortality, it only had to be good enough to take people up to the mortality age. So even if the diet in fact killed every survivor on their 45th birthday, it would have made little or no difference to human evolution during that period. In other words, the best we can say about the paleolithic diet from fossil evidence is that it will allow you to live for about 40 years, assuming you still have a paleolithic set of genes. As far as the diseases that show up after 40 are concerned (heart disease, cancer, etc.), the paleolithic diet might have been good or bad - it would have made no difference to paleolithic humans, and any evolutionary adaptations to said diet would have been indifferent to the effects of the diet on these diseases.

The paleolithic lifestyle led to the agricultural revolution and the *sedentary* lifestyle we also inherit because once cultures became sedentary and not migratory hunter/tribes, agriculture and other technological advances gave many more humans the opportunity to die from *old age* instead of disease, environment extremes, and brutality. We can romanticize the past too easily, if they were so successful evolutionarily, under the rules of selective pressure they would still dominate the world and the children of grain would be the minority.

There was no conspiracy of culture, only natural selection and the classic competition of natural selection demonstrates the advantages of sedentary cultures to protect and educate their young into maturity increasing their populations, as well as increased general productivity. Their defense of the harvest far and away outstripped the individual advantages experienced by the survivors of the paleolithic lifestyle's brutal infant mortality rate that indeed helped to insure an offspring with greater immunity, stronger physical prowess, but no particularly innate resistance to the ravages of old age should the individual be the fortunate 1 in a 1000 member of the community to actually achieve that state.

In some of the reading above you will find a debate about his very fact. Some argue that the reason we begin seeing the ravages of old age in the sedentary cultures is that they finally began to live long enough to experience them and the actual survival rate of the hunter gatherers to disease and injury was so low we rarely see evidence of the damage to their fossils.

We have some modern support for this argument and perhaps the idea that excess carbs might be even worse for recent transitory genetic groups versus groups that have been sedentary for a lot longer, in the impact of modern diets on Amerind, African, and Mongol peoples. They can suffer extreme obesity, diabetes and other diet related illnesses more than other groups. There are a variety of complicated aspects that make that inference highly debatable and complicated because it is as much a socioeconomic analysis as nutrigenetic.

Going back to CR as a genetic response to feast/famine cycles this may be related to the hunter/gatherers need to store food metabolically between seasonal periods of abundant game/forage and why starvation diets in some people actually trigger binge eating cycles, which increase the patients likelihood of becoming obese.

[kismet]

What I know about paleo diet is that actual lifespans and actual diets of paleolithic people have not much to do with it. It's more about the optimization - or an attempt to do so - of biomarkers and disease risks, regardless of any ideology behind it. The paleo train of thought is a mere tool in this attempt.

Of course conclusive evidence is not there, but if it's working (and it seems to be working) I don't really care about paleolithic people.

Wait, wait, how can the actual lifespans have nothing to do with it? You do realise that longevity is often realised through trade-offs in fitness (and vice versa) and that our ancestors who lived short lives most certainly adapted to the latter. Those two attributes are interwoven, you can't look at anything in isolation. Experimental data from studies of any kind is much more important than the paleo-people-adapted-to-this-diet-argument ever could be.

[DukeNukem]

The Okanawans eat a calorie restricted diet. Plus, the carbs they eat are pure paleo-type carbs, except for the little bit of soy and rice they eat. The Sardinians eat a lot of fish protein. Plus, red wine might be working in their favor a little. I don't know enough about the other groups to make a comment.

As for CR, it's not a diet, per se. It's on a different axis of nutritional health tactics, and is compatible with practically any diet -- the same as episodic fasting. Although, if I decided to try CR, I'd almost certainly do it with a hunger-reducing paleo diet.

The key points I always emphasize of the paleo diet are actually quite different than Loren Cordain's recommendations. His book, IMO, is significantly wrong in a few areas, such as calling coconut oil a "bad fat." He also places high value on flax oil. And quite a few other things where I think he took a wrong turn. My key points: No grains (although non-gluten grains are okay for occasional cheating), no processed fructose, and no high PUFA (>10%) oils (other than fish oil). Note that these are in common with all the longevity diets mentioned above, with the exception that some of the mentioned groups eat a lot of non-gluten starchy carbs. Frankly, I don't think these carbs are beneficial, they're more likely just harmless filler calories. Active people can likely handle these better than most civilized people, so that's why I think we should greatly reduce them.

[Forever21]

the role of glycemic index

http://www.reuters.c...N20527420070222

[Johan]

[...] My key points: No grains (although non-gluten grains are okay for occasional cheating), no processed fructose, and no high PUFA (>10%) oils (other than fish oil). Note that these are in common with all the longevity diets mentioned above, with the exception that some of the mentioned groups eat a lot of non-gluten starchy carbs. Frankly, I don't think these carbs are beneficial, they're more likely just harmless filler calories. Active people can likely handle these better than most civilized people, so that's why I think we should greatly reduce them.

I see you don't mention fructose from fruits; however, I know from your earlier posts that you have advocated moderate fruit consumption due to fructose. Is this lack of mention only because you and Cordain agree on that point, or has your opinion on the matter changed? If so, what has caused the change?

Edited by Johan, 24 January 2009 - 12:30 PM.

[JLL]

The hunter/gatherers spent as much as 90% of their waking moments involved in hunting, foraging, processing, eating, defending or stealing their foraging/kills. They were running, walking, climbing, crawling, carrying, digging, pulling, fighting, stalking, trapping, etc almost from the moment they awoke from a relatively short sleep cycle till lights out brought them back to the fire for a nights activity of a shared meal, a good dance, and maybe a shared... well it couldn't exactly be called a bed though it is paleo-linguistically why we still say we *make* our bed each day.

Do you have any data to back this up? I'm asking because I read an article a while ago which attempted to show that hunter-gatherers were not as active as we thought they were, and that they spent a considerable part of their day doing nothing.

[kenj]

>>> This is very interesting. So how long do they live? What diseases do they die of? Are they tall and thin or short and pudgy?

The Hunzans are being portrayed as very physically active people FWIW, - almost with boundless energy compared to western standards, putting the carbs->glucose from food into action, -
I think their elders are a great example of optimal fitness, thriving on plant based diets with minimal meat. No diseases.

[nowayout]

We have some modern support for this argument and perhaps the idea that excess carbs might be even worse for recent transitory genetic groups versus groups that have been sedentary for a lot longer, in the impact of modern diets on Amerind, African, and Mongol peoples. They can suffer extreme obesity, diabetes and other diet related illnesses more than other groups. There are a variety of complicated aspects that make that inference highly debatable and complicated because it is as much a socioeconomic analysis as nutrigenetic.

In these groups I doubt that it is the carbs per se. I recently watched a PBS show containing a very telling scene showing a native American tribe divided by the U.S.-Mexican border. Most of those shown on the U.S. side were grossly obese, and were shown feasting on hamburgers, hot dogs, cheese, butter, white bread, beer, sugary soft drinks, and so on. The animal protein and fat content of their diet appeared to be much higher than that of their cousins across the border, who were thin, and whose diet appeared to consist of traditional agrarian foods based on beans, maize, and tubers, all high in (unrefined) carbohydrates.

Obviously here the carbs are not to blame, since the thin cousins eat lots of carbs. These people are obese because they are malnourished and uneducated. I furthermore doubt that genetics has much to do with it - I see morbidly obese people from every ethnic background, most of whom are in fact of European descent, every day here, and they usually have in common the fact that they are poor and/or uneducated. I think blaming native Americans' genetics is politically a very convenient excuse to obscure the real reason for their terrible health problems, which is their terrible socioeconomic conditions in the U.S. These people are at the same time obese and malnourished on a typical U.S. poverty level diet, where a cheeseburger can be cheaper than an apple.

I don't doubt that different groups may have different physical responses to refined sugar or alcohol, but I definitely doubt that that is the main reason for these people's health problems, and the issue of refined sugar is in any case separate from the issue of carbs in general, which is being discussed in this thread.

Edited by andre, 24 January 2009 - 02:11 PM.

[Brainbox]

Maybe the Paleo diet is one answer, but not the only one. Perhaps the conclusion is correct, in some cases, even if the logic is a little shaky in other cases.

Everybody seems to act like there must be ONE answer, ONE type of diet. But that seems counter-intuitive to me.

A diet can diminish certain conditions which contribute to aging but will not resolve or cure aging. Even the groups mentioned for longevity--having these amazing diets--They all die anyway.

Everybody has different conditions, and therefore a unique diet is needed for unique conditions. But this will just diminish certain factors of aging--not all.

Long-lived people have various diets which probably worked out good for their health needs. Communities of long-lived people (genetically similar) eat what fulfills their (genetically similar) needs.

Perhaps for people espeically sensitive to Carb intake, the Paleo diet works out to diminsh health concerns due to carb sensitivity.

But for others not sensitive to carb intake, who have other issues, they need a different diet.

enter nutrigenetics

I think that's a good one to. But apart from trying to figure out what your direct ancestors have been eating, based on regional archaeological information which lacks the level of individuality that seems to be required, what other means are available?
Signing up with a genome sequencing service would be a first step, but this lacks accuracy as well since interpretation of the human genome is still in it's infancy, especially outside the disease prediction area.

[morb]

Anyone over 40 should be supplementing with hormones, to counteract the inevitable decline that everyone experiences after the age of 35. Why let the natural degradation of the endocrine system weaken your chance to live healthily for a decade or two longer? Besides eating right, this is the next best thing a person can do to extend their life.

o What is the purpose of insulin? It is not to lower blood sugar, as is believed by the general public and the medical profession alike. That is a relatively trivial side effect, as it is also the function of other hormones such as glucagon, epinephrine, cortisol and growth hormone. Insulin's evolutionary purpose is to store excess energy for future times of need. It lowers blood glucose levels for the purpose of storing it away, not regulating it. Our ancestors were forced to survive for days, weeks, or even months on little food. High glucose was not a big problem back then! Insulin helped our ancestors store away nutrients for the proverbial rainy day when they would need it.

Note that insulin's purpose is to store energy for future use. Now here's the key: Our body, via insulin, stores glucose NOT as glucose, but as the preferred fuel, fat. Think about that for a moment. Our bodies run better on fatty acids in our bloodstream, rather than glucose. So, when our blood sugar rises, that extra glucose is quickly converted to fat (triglycerides), and tucked neatly away for a rainy day. And when that rainy day does come, our body DOES NOT convert that fat back to glucose, it breaks down those stored triglycerides into fatty acids, the preferred energy source. Everyone who switches to a paleo diet comes to understand that our body runs better and more evenly when we give it the chance to run on its preferred metabolic fuel. And, as a fat bonus, we age less quickly.

1. Hold off on the hormones til your endogenous production is practically non existent ie 70s-80s, HRT makes everything grow faster especially cancer.

2. Fat is a more efficient energy storage but glucose is stored as glycogen in the muscles and liver, which is practically identical to and converted back to glucose for use ie glycogenolysis. If you eat no carbs or are starving yourself to burn fat (your body will preferentially use glucose) ketosis and gluconeogenesis occurs, which again is your body converting fat back into glucose. Like it or not your body runs on glucose.

3. From article- "Contrary to what you have been told, there are no insulin sensitizing drugs." This author has apparently never heard of biguanides or thiazolidenediones or at least never studied their mechanisms of action.

4. From article- "In short, low insulin is very healthy and good for you as long as its message is being heard. Most treatments for type 2 insulin-resistant diabetes, however, involve drugs that raise insulin or utilize injections of insulin itself. Treatment of type I diabetes also generally requires excessive quantities of insulin." Umm, no shit. DM type 1 or IDDM absolutely requires insulin b/c the body is not making it, and before exogenous insulin those people died very young. Type 2 DM or NIDDM is deficient beta cells and insulin resistance, so we can use insulin secretagogues first but eventually this progresses to the need for exog insulin as the beta cells completely wear out which is about 10yrs from early diagnosis.

Yes dietary control is a huge part of diabetic therapy. Yes CRON is the way to longevity. The vast majority of this article is pure blather and metaphors. When the author actually puts forth a proposed treatment, well you would not live very long if he were your doc.

[frederickson]

What I know about paleo diet is that actual lifespans and actual diets of paleolithic people have not much to do with it. It's more about the optimization - or an attempt to do so - of biomarkers and disease risks, regardless of any ideology behind it. The paleo train of thought is a mere tool in this attempt.

Of course conclusive evidence is not there, but if it's working (and it seems to be working) I don't really care about paleolithic people.

bingo! to compare the lifespan of paleolithic vs. agricultural/current populations neglects a bevy of important variables (stress, infection, injury, etc.) that would skew the lifespan in favor of modern populations.

optimization of disease markers (inflammatory cytokines, lipids, etc.) should be the real basis of comparison as the poster pointed out. the evidence is mounting that it is tough to beat paleo or lower carbohydrate diets in that regard.

[nowayout]

It's more about the optimization - or an attempt to do so - of biomarkers and disease risks, regardless of any ideology behind it. The paleo train of thought is a mere tool in this attempt.

Of course conclusive evidence is not there, but if it's working (and it seems to be working) I don't really care about paleolithic people.

What evidence is there that it seems to be working? Is there any existing culture on this planet where a lifelong paleo diet has been linked with longevity in the same way as, for example, the diets in certain mediterranean regions? As we see every year with new drug warnings and drugs being taken off the market after being on the market for a long time, disease risks often take many years and large populations to show up (to mention just two examples, consider ibuprofen, or female postmenopausal hormone replacement). A few short-term studies on weight loss or biomarkers do not mean very much.

[Prometheus]

one of the things that gives away pretty much what diet humans have evolved/adapted to is when you examine hypothalamic appetite regulation (the brain's appetite control centers receive information from afferents and hormones in response to food from the mouth to the small intestine). protein and fat (chains >12) have a high satiety index with protein having the longest satiety effect. on the other hand, fructose does the opposite in the brain because it causes an ATP drop (during conversion to glucose) which is perceived as a shortage of food. unsuprisingly fruit has a low satiety index. also, unlike glucose which can be directly absorbed in muscle, fructose has to be converted in the liver to glucose before it can be used. in addition to the metabolism destabilizing effects of glucose, it has also been shown to be addictive.

from an appetite regulation perspective, the paleo/duke diet is most in line with how the brain has evolved to sense nutrients