 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / November 2007The "Paleo" diet, a goldmine of "simple carbs."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070909184006.htm On Oct 31, 3:03 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070909184006.htm A goldmine of complex carbs it sounds like. Otherwise there wouldn't be a selective pressure for more genes to instruct for more amylase, IMO. Perhaps you could supply some evidence for your notion. 'll refer you back to the article. Some Japanese have more of these genes related to starch digestion and they have been rice eaters. Rice contains starch. monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > Perhaps you could supply some evidence for your notion. On Nov 3, 11:48 am, trigonometry1...@gmail.com wrote: > 'll refer you back to the article. Some Japanese have more of these > genes related to starch digestion and they have been rice eaters. > Rice contains starch. > > monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > > Perhaps you could supply some evidence for your notion. Unrelated but I wonder whether having more amylase is an advantage in modern world with excess of starchy foods. With more amylase you can get more simple carbs out of the starches into your blood and increase the glycemic load. It was certainly an advantage in the times of famine to get more "fuel" from the roots but novadays? Taka > On Nov 3, 11:48 am, trigonometry1...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Taka I'll suggest like war and epidemic, famine is always coming. Human nature hasn't changed. Governments fail. Ecological condition impact man whether by nature or the actions of man. Wars of empire can end empires as well as build them. The West because of WW1 and WWW2 gradually has lost it grip on the East. Will China stand? Will it go mad?. Will she build an empire by peace or war? Will the Russian empire rise again? How high will the temperature go? When will the oil run out? When will the next super volcano hit? Not important to the old farts in the white house as they'll be safely dead soon enough by natural causes but for the generations famine will come again. For now people had better make changes such that they don't become obese. > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070909184006.htm Tubers and roots, i.e. the underground starchy parts. So the anti- grain "Paleo movement" like mercola.com or Cordian (thepaleodiet.com) may still have some point. Even Ray Peat talks about the toxicity of the above-the-ground parts of plants (http://raypeat.com/articles/ articles/vegetables.shtml). Here is an interesting article about the impact of grain farming during the neolithic period: http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml So should we then switch to the root-vegetable with occasional meat diet? Taka BTW the main item in the diet of people living in the Japanese "village of long life" are different types of potato - http://www.pacifichealthcenter.com/updates/64.asp http://www.appliedhealth.com/ABC_News_HA.html http://www.greatamericanproducts.com/pages/Home/Articles/Hyaluronic_Acid:_A_Brea kthroug >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070909184006.htm > Tubers and roots, i.e. the underground starchy parts. So the anti- [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So should we then switch to the root-vegetable with occasional meat > diet? Then when? Both mercola and raypeat dot coms talk about how AIDS has nothing to do with HIV. Whatever they think doesn't add or subtract any weight to the ideas in the sciencedaily article. They seem to occupy a niche where you whine a lot while waving around some pretty kooky ideas in order to get noticed. > >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070909184006.htm > > Tubers and roots, i.e. the underground starchy parts. So the anti- [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > They seem to occupy a niche where you whine a lot while waving around > some pretty kooky ideas in order to get noticed. Wow. The Straw Man cometh. In two paragraphs you've managed to pack in four logical fallacies--either explicit or implicit in nature. That individual seems to think that science is based upon popular opinion. Does he/she even know that there has never been an experiment in which fresh, non-"stimulated" blood samples from "high viral load" "AIDS patients" and those who are said to be "HIV negative," but whose bodies are undergoing stress (systemic lupus, running the marathon, pregnancy, etc.) were treated the same way and studied under the EM to see if "HIV" particles are present? Wouldn't that be the first place to start when dealing with "dissidents?" And yet this simple, obvious, fundamental experiment was never done. Who is the "kook" here? As to the issue at hand, that article made it clear that "simple carbs" were required for brain evolution. To suggest that "complex carbs" would help in this context is ludicrous, because any fiber will either do nothing towards this end or else be a hindrance. The brain wants sugar, and yet the "experts" engage in all kinds of twisted logic in an attempt to sell the public on their fish oil/"complex carbs" agenda. Why? There's no grand conspiracy, just an unwillingness to reconsider preconceptions (some of which were refuted decades ago), a desire to believe in something, and a need to cover up past mistakes by focusing on "the positive." For example, they won't tell people that arachidonic acid is very dangerous and also unnecessary. Instead, they tell people to consume large amounts of fish oil, very dangerous as well, because they can talk about the temporary "benefits" that result from the inhibition of AA metabolization. Obviously, it would be easy to do the simple, inexpensive experiments that would demonstrate this clearly. Instead, they look for markers, mostly not even direct ones, as well as correlations/links/associations, etc., and short term benefits (without giving a thought to long term dangers). If DZ wants to play "follow the leader" and consume large amounts of fish oil, he/she will get what he/she deserves. He/she now knows that the existing dogma is anti-scientific and dangerous, and that there is a much safer alternative way to eat. It's difficult to say what is worse, the person who clings stubbornly to what is obviously wrong (take a look at the political situation in the USA for a good example of that) or the person who is trying to sell a dangerous product simply to make profits, without any thought about long term effects. On Nov 2, 6:17 am, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > As to the issue at hand, that article made it clear that "simple > carbs" were required for brain evolution. No it didn't. You're reading things that aren't there. They quite clearly point the finger at starches - complex carbs. > To suggest that "complex > carbs" would help in this context is ludicrous, because any fiber will > either do nothing towards this end or else be a hindrance Fibre by definition is indigestible. Complex carbs are digestible to simple carbs. MattLB > On Nov 2, 6:17 am, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > MattLB Come on, so he mistook complex carbs for simple carbs+fiber, everyone makes mistakes sometimes. Note that he is not professionaly trained in biochemistry and specializes in fats rather than carbs. IMHO fiber can be also considered a complex carb since it's build from glucose units and microbes living in the gut can digest it ... > > On Nov 2, 6:17 am, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Come on, so he mistook complex carbs for simple carbs+fiber, everyone > makes mistakes sometimes. You're being generous calling it a mistake, when it's really just another example of lack of understanding. >Note that he is not professionaly trained > in biochemistry I've been well aware for a long time, as have all the other posters who do have qualifications. It's a pity that lack of training doesn't hold him back from making grandiose claims. > and specializes in fats rather than carbs. So you trust what he says about fats, despite his errors about carbs? He used to say that trans fats were saturated. Also, if he's going to make such arrogant claims as it being "ludicrous" then he should be sure of his facts first. > IMHO fiber > can be also considered a complex carb since it's build from glucose > units and microbes living in the gut can digest it ... Certainly fibre is usually a complex carbohydrate in the chemical sense, but it's called fibre because it's indigestible. Certain indigestible forms of starch are also fibre, but the simple/complex carb term is related to digestible forms. MattLB > So you trust what he says about fats, despite his errors about carbs? > He used to say that trans fats were saturated. Trans fats as well as PUFAs have been with us all the time in "trace" amounts. The question is which is more dangerous when taken in large amounts like the refined cooking vegetable oils and the margarines/ shortenings. Monty's point is that trans fats are less reactive due to higher degree of saturation and therefore cause less oxidative damage. In this respect they resemble saturated fats. He doesn't seem to be interested in the metabolic havoc the "unnatural" trans configuration may cause but there is not enough molecular evidence on this yet. Taka > That individual seems to think that science is based upon popular > opinion. This is not how it works. I'm going to try and explain it this time. Me and my buddy had a fling with philosophy of science in grad school. We both eventually found better things to do, but our phil sci paper received the 2nd place in a National Student Competition. At that time we discovered IJ Good whose ideas I will rehash below. Virtually no experiment or even a series of them constitutes a proof of a scientific hypothesis. But successive experiments can push the probability of a hypothesis toward 1; although it will not become 1 (re: Popper etc). What happens is that odds of competing hypotheses are shifted by accumulating evidence. The probabilities of various hypotheses are always estimated, given the evidence. This is often done in the mind of a rational researcher, rather than explicitly. Before any evidence (that comes from experiments and data), relative chances of hypotheses are given by subjective BELIEFS. For example, you would believe a priori that it is the arachidonic acid which in some sense "causes" AIDS, rather than the HIV. In other words, you'd have a high a priori probability for this hypothesis. Then comes the evidence from various research that updates prior beliefs, shifting chances of competing hypotheses. (I'm well familiar with the evidence BTW as I worked in the HIV area). At this point I have to ask: What is your subjective estimate, given all the evidence available to you that HIV is the "cause" of AIDS in the sense played out in the mainstream literature? Your reference to an experiment that was never done should not prevent you from giving such an estimate. To make an analogy, the probability that the darwinian evolution took place is extremely high given the indirect evidence despite the "intelligent design" (creationist) argument that no direct experiment has been done that would "prove" that evolution could happen. There is no better way to explain the hypotheses odds idea than to refer to a most simple example such as that of coin tosses [*]. > If DZ wants to play "follow the leader" and consume large amounts of > fish oil, he/she will get what he/she deserves. Why would I eat large amounts of fish oil? That wouldn't make any sense, because that would presume that I believe in a linear effect of the amount of consumed EFAs on longevity. That's exactly the pseudoscience argument on raypeat.com, made in the reference to Sinclair who went on a 100 days diet consisted largely of fish oil, and observed ill effects. From that raypeat.com concludes that fish oil is "unhealthy". BTW Sinclair praises EFAs at the end of that transcript (it's a banquet speech rather than a peer-reviewed paper). That said, I grew up with a cat in Far East who lived for 25 years on a diet of raw Alaska Pollock (defrosted fillet), which was the cheapest of all "meats" at the time. [*] Suppose that in my world there are only 2 types of coins. The first type of coins is fair (H:T = 50:50), the other type is "unfair" - that kind of coin yields a "T" 19 times out of 20, on average. Suppose I'm a totally MAD scientist, but not a kook. I am mad because I believe my own crazy hypothesis that 99.99% of coins are made the second way, that is unfair. Yet, upon observing the sequence of 4 tosses (H,H,T,H) of a particular coin, I would evaluate the probability that the coin is fair to be 86%. If I were a kook, I would still claim 100-99.99 = 0.01%. This computation does incorporate my original DIS-belief that the coin is fair, as well as the data that come along. Were I less mad and assumed a priori that perhaps 50% of all coins are fair, that probability would be 99.998%, instead of 86%. But if I keep tossing and observe (H,H,T,H,H,T,H,T,H), I would have to accept that the coin is fair with almost 100% certainty even though it contradicts my original faith. Does that experiment of 9 tosses constitute a proof that the coin is fair? No. Does my computation include the original faith? Yes. However, during the scientific process, the evidence is combined with prior chances for various hypotheses to be correct. > [*] Suppose that in my world there are only 2 types of coins. The > first type of coins is fair (H:T = 50:50), the other type is "unfair" [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Yes. However, during the scientific process, the evidence is combined > with prior chances for various hypotheses to be correct. Unfortunately science is not like playing with coins, the experiments are not done and the results are not published randomly but there is a high selective pressure towards certain topics, recognized names and dogmas. The industry-sponsored research or papers with the names of known authorities could be examples. It rather resembles politics or religion especially in todays nutritional science. I think the best way to find the truth is to follow the molecular mechanisms (if you understand them) and don't waste time with the papers parroting the established dogmas even if there is only 1 against 100. Sometimes there is not even 1 paper on the point so you have to watch what people are doing and how they look or experiment on yourself if your health is at stake. I don't think one needs an university degree to understand or interpret the molecular mechanisms. There are many self-educated people which can outsmart recognized experts. Deep interest in the subject and of course mental ability are more important. The people professionally working in a narrow scientific field may be actually too blinded to make a new finding or change the flow of things. Sometimes an outsider or someone from unrelated field (even historician) who can see the problem from different angle is needed. I do have a degree and work professionally in biological sciences and I do find most of Monty's arguments compelling. He may be stubborn on several incorrect items but that is not important in the whole context for me. No one to my knowledge except him has ever risen the dangers of overconsumption of unsaturated fats here. Following the advices that humans need EFAs and need to supplement omega-3 oils for longevity can be quite dangerous as I have also personally experienced. Following the popular opinion one would think the more omega-3 the better. The "Paleo professor" Cordain e.g. claims that humans should consume 20% PUFAs in the diet: http://www.thepaleodiet.com/newsletter/newsletters/PDNewsVol3No4.pdf But nobody making such claims is willing to do an experiment on himself like Monty to demonstrate the health benefits of such high PUFA diet. AFAIK only some naive bodybuilders are doing "experiments" close to this and you can read the variety of health problems like allergies, infections, erection disorders etc. on their forums. As the transcript of an oral MIT departmental "progress report" about the relieve of EFAD symptoms by VitB6 from 1940 may not be enough evidence to refute the EFA theory there is not enough evidence that PUFAs are essential for adults either. On the other hand there is enough molecular level evidence about the negative effects of omega-3 and excess of omega-6 in the body and the inertness of SFAs. Also the human body has the ability to synthesize its own PUFA - the Mead acid - for a reason. IMHO the molecular damage caused by PUFAs outweights the damage caused by sugars alone (AGEs) so it's important to have someone like Monty pointing this out. Taka > I do have a degree and work professionally in biological sciences and > I do find most of Monty's arguments compelling. He may be stubborn > on several incorrect items but that is not important in the whole > context for me. A strange attitude. He's demonstrably wrong about many of his pet ideas, but you choose to believe he's right for another. He can't actually back up anything he says with descriptive data. He goes on about molecular level detail, but never provides it, even when directly asked. > No one to my knowledge except him has ever risen the > dangers of overconsumption of unsaturated fats here. It's always been a given. No-one has ever suggested eating lots of PUFA, he just assume that anyone who doesn't agree with his "no PUFA" viewpoint must have an "eat lots" viewpoint. Back in 2003 I said :"There can be no denial that oxidised fatty acids are very bad news," http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.nutrition/msg/73579c778a3bc76c?dmode=source Note that monty1945 was nick back then. He just continues to act as if he's the only one who realises that oxidised PUFA have negative health effects, when in fact it's widely known. > As the transcript of an oral MIT departmental "progress report" about > the relieve of EFAD symptoms by VitB6 from 1940 may not be enough > evidence to refute the EFA theory there is not enough evidence that > PUFAs are essential for adults either. I've cited some modern studies on EFA deficiency many times (over seven) and every time monty1945 fails to address them. Maybe you will. "Thirty years later, Hansen et al. [140] were the first to describe EFAD in humans. They observed unsatisfactory growth rates and dryness of the skin in many infants on low LA intakes. EFAD has been most extensively described in subjects on fat-free total parenteral nutrition (TPN)[141-147]. For example, O'Neill et al. [142] reported on 28 patients,ranging from newborns to 66 years old, who received fat-free TPN. LA levels fell rapidly, followed by AA. In most of the patients the 20:3n9/20:4n6 ratio (a biochemical marker for EFAD) had increased after a few weeks above the 0.4 criterion [148], followed approximately one week later by clinical signs of a scaly and thin skin, and hair loss. In addition to these classical EFAD symptoms, many other biological and behavioural changes have been documented [149-151]" Two of the refs: Wene JD, Connor WE, DenBesten L. The development of essential fatty acid deficiency in healthy men fed fat-free diets intravenously and orally. J Clin Invest 1975;56:127-34 O'Neill JA, Caldwell MD, Meng HC. Essential fatty acid deficiency in surgical patients. Ann Surg 1977;185:535-41" Despite his claims there are a number of papers where intervention with EFA a made difference and they are certainly required in cell culture media. >On the other hand there is > enough molecular level evidence about the negative effects of omega-3 > and excess of omega-6 in the body and the inertness of SFAs. Also the > human body has the ability to synthesize its own PUFA - the Mead acid > - for a reason. IMHO the molecular damage caused by PUFAs Mead acid is a PUFA. > outweights > the damage caused by sugars alone (AGEs) so it's important to have > someone like Monty pointing this out. He rather glosses over AGEs since it doesn't sit well with his "I eat lots of simple carbs" position. It's up for debate which is worse for the body, but it's the AGEs that cause diabetics to die young. MattLB >> On the other hand there is enough molecular level evidence about >> the negative effects of omega-3 and excess of omega-6 in the body [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mead acid is a PUFA. And let's not forget that cells deprived of EFA fill up with mead acid and die. E.g. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/4/1147 > >> On the other hand there is enough molecular level evidence about > >> the negative effects of omega-3 and excess of omega-6 in the body [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And let's not forget that cells deprived of EFA fill up with mead > acid and die. E.g.http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/4/1147 I liked their turn of phrase here: "After 2-3 weeks of culture, EFA- deprived cells stopped growing, and cell death hampered further evaluation." MattLB > Unfortunately science is not like playing with coins, the > experiments are not done and the results are not published randomly > but there is a high selective pressure towards certain topics, > recognized names and dogmas. That was meant only as an illustration on updating beliefs with evidence and in reality even "playing with coins" is more complicated, because, well, you can load a dice but you can't make a coin biased with regard to the probability of T/H in flips. But there will always be people who see a grand conspiracy behind every coin toss. > As the transcript of an oral MIT departmental "progress report" > about the relieve of EFAD symptoms by VitB6 from 1940 may not be > enough evidence to refute the EFA theory The word you omitted here is "partial", as used in the report. Only the subsequent addition of a PUFA completely reversed the symptoms: "The dermatitis which developed after two to four weeks on a fat-free pyridoxine-free diet was partially cured by feeding pyridoxine, and completely cured when both pyridoxine and linoleic acid were added." http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/radiation/dir/mstreet/commeet/meet4/brief4.gfr/tab_ e/br4e1c.txt It was a 2 to 4 weeks fat-free diet experiment which has no relation to the question of "E" in EFA. >> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070909184006.htm >> > Tubers and roots, i.e. the underground starchy parts. So the anti- [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Wow. The Straw Man cometh. In two paragraphs you've managed to pack > in four logical fallacies--either explicit or implicit in nature. When I listen to a talk that is not in my area, I take certain things on faith, trusting credibility of the presenter. A scientist is given such a generous trust by default and "for free", by his colleagues and the scientific community. However, once he is proven to behave irrationally with regard to even a single idea (or commit misconduct, like forging data), the credibility is lost. Bottom line: cranks are not to be trusted. On Nov 1, 9:07 am, trigonometry1...@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 31, 3:03 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a selective pressure for more genes to instruct for more > amylase, IMO. Don't worry monty1945 has his own set of definitions for scientific terms. His confusion of simple and complex carbs is just another example. MattLB > On Oct 31, 3:03 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070909184006.htm > > A goldmine of complex carbs it sounds like. Otherwise there wouldn't > be a selective pressure for more genes to instruct for more amylase, > IMO. A goldmine of *complex* carbs indeed, but I'd like to expand on your second point about selection. It is actually quite complicated to reach the conclusion about selective pressure. About 12% of human genome are variations in copy numbers, which just like SNPs is mostly a non-selective (effectively neutral) variation, and whole gene duplications can be neutral. Each finding where populations differ with respect to a copy number needs to be checked against predictions of the drift model without selection. It's not that there isn't necessarily any selective difference, but low selection coefficients are dampened by the effects of random drift when the population size is small enough. Such neutral model is a usual "null hypothesis" of the modern evolutionary theory. They in fact did that and found that the hypothesis of drift can be rejected, although the sciencedaily article doesn't mention this very important piece. BTW, there is an old (1970) book that is still being cited in 2007 and is very much relevant (one nice review was published just 2 years ago in Teratology) - "Evolution by gene duplication" by Susumu Ohno. I've read it in one sitting around 1985 when I began studying for my 1st degree in genetics and cell biology. The book argues for a fundamental and universal role of duplication in evolution. Briefly, a duplicate (extra) copy is "allowed" to accumulate otherwise deleterious mutations because of a relaxed selective pressure , thus the population can pass through saddle points (of low fitness) in Sewall Wright's "adaptive landscape" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape). |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.