9:07 pm
February 22, 2010
Peggy:
"Meant" is a tricky term, which I'd rather avoid since I don't want to ascribe intentionality to a physical process (natural selection).
But as far as what humans are adapted for, I think you're touching on an important distinction: what we can eat versus what we should eat. A large, slowly-reproducing species like humans is limited not by our ability to reproduce during good times, but by our ability to survive bad times.
So we've most likely been selected for our ability to survive on starchy tubers during times we couldn't get meat. Even something that happens only once every 1,000 years — like a 1,000 year drought — is basically a continual crisis in evolutionary time.
I ignore vegetables in this calculation because they simply don't have meaningful calories for us. They have micronutrients, but they're basically medicinal rather than nutritional. I enjoy them and eat them basically daily, but I don't make any special effort to eat them and don't stress about not eating "enough".
You'll probably enjoy this article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/100yearold-breaks-shot-put-record-1801786.html
JS
4:46 pm
I had colon cancer almost 5 years ago and had my descending colon as well as the sigmoid section removed. The transverse colon is now connected to the rectum. So, I am missing an important part of my colon; the doctor told me it would not affect my health to be missing it. I actually have been fine since them with no problems and wonder what am I actually missing out on. The one thing that has changed is my pooop is smellier. Thoughts?
Lillian
11:08 am
February 22, 2010
Lillian:
I know someone who had a similar operation, with the same result: smellier poop.
This is because, as the article shows, the colon is where indigestible vegetable matter is fermented (or 'rots', if you prefer) by gut bacteria in order to squeeze a few more calories out of it. And since our colon is small relative to an herbivore, we don't get a lot of nutrition out of the colon anyway: mainly we're reclaiming a lot of the water that would otherwise be wasted.
So what you'd expect is that vegetable matter that we can't digest -- particularly complex sugars like raffinose, stachyose, and other FODMAPs -- would not be digested by your gut bacteria, and would simply come out your back end in a stinky way. I would expect beans, artichokes, asparagus, and certain fruits (especially dried fruits) to be a problem: you can read a list of common FODMAP-containing foods here. Milk might also be an issue if you're lactose-intolerant.
Beano will help you digest beans (it's an enzyme that breaks down the raffinose in beans) -- but as you'd imagine, I'd recommend simply avoiding the problem foods, as you're not getting food value from them anyway.
Does this sound about right?
JS
7:55 pm
What a great thread.
I just wanted to add some thoughts to what JS said about vegetarianism and self-esteem. I don't believe he was suggesting that all vegetarianism stems from low self-esteem. I read his remarks as referring to a subset of vegetarians, i.e., the tweens and teens.
In my own experience and that of many people I know, vegetarianism served as a convenient and socially acceptable means to limit caloric intake. I was a vegetarian from my early teens through my mid-twenties and anorexic for even longer. And, yes, both the anorexia and the accompanying meat avoidance grew from the fact that I considered myself somehow 'unworthy.'
There are all kinds of reasons why people choose to follow a vegetarian diet, but I would strongly urge parents of young women to ask themselves whether their daughter's new-found aversion to meat might not be a sign of something deeper. (And if it's not, hurrah!)
1:24 am
February 22, 2010
Julie S:
Not all veg*anism comes from self-esteem issues: but based on the veg*ans I know/have known and my own time as a vegetarian, I think there is a strong correlation at all ages, not just tweens and teens (which tend to have the largest self-esteem issues).
You make an excellent and scary point about veg*anism being a socially acceptable way to justify disordered eating. (Paleo Pepper often talks about those issues on her blog.) I hope parents will read that and take your advice to heart. Thank you.
JS
12:02 pm
Too bad this website wasn't around back in my proselytizing vegetarian and vegan days!
First, to add to the veg*anism and self-esteem thread, I did have generally low self-esteem back in the days when I first became a vegetarian (at 15), but I don't think that contributed to my dietary change. I stopped eating meat basically because my best friend was doing it. Plus there was all the information I picked up in "health" class about how red meat (saturated fat!) is bad for you. Then when I went all the way to being vegan, I truly believed that lives of all animals were equal, and since I didn't *need* animal products to survive, I had no right to interfere in their lives.
Sixteen years later, enter iron-deficiency anemia and severe fatigue. I'd always maintained that if I were starving, I would eat whatever I needed to ensure my survival. So I started in on some clams and oysters, moved on to sardines and salmon, and, after reading so much on this and related websites regarding Paleo diets, have started in on grass-fed cow muscle and organs. Incidentally, I suffered not a single digestive upset from eating animal flesh after so many years' abstinence.
Regarding another topic of the thread, about whether the planet could sustain everyone eating a diet of meat and vegetables, I like the argument discussed by another blogger (I can't recall who, sadly) who said something along the lines of, "Even if everyone else can't eat this way, if I *can*, what is there to stop me?" The agro-industrial complex is partially driven by consumers. If people stopped eating junk food, the manufacturers would be driven out of business, there would no longer be the same outlet for corn and soy, and government might finally rethink the excessive crop subsidies. If people started eating more grass-fed animals, these food systems would expand, and a new equilibrium would be reached.
If other countries were actually allowed to reach whatever food/population equilibrium they are able to have with their own internal resources without the interference of other countries, then we'd start heading back towards an ecological balance. There are countries where people die from starvation malnutrition, in Africa, to take the most obvious example; however there are also countries where people die from malnutrition of over-nutrition. Think about how health care costs have increased over the past decades due to the poor health habits of overfed people in the United States. We all need to rebalance.
12:39 pm
February 22, 2010
Melly Sue:
"Incidentally, I suffered not a single digestive upset from eating animal flesh after so many years' abstinence."
I've heard a lot of veg*ans say "Oh, I couldn't eat meat, my body refuses to digest it now". There might indeed be some issues with stomach acid and bile production, but I'm convinced much of it is psychosomatic -- like koro, where Chinese men (and others, sometimes) are utterly convinced their penis is disappearing into their body and they will die when it does.
"The agro-industrial complex is partially driven by consumers. If people
stopped eating junk food, the manufacturers would be driven out of
business, there would no longer be the same outlet for corn and soy, and
government might finally rethink the excessive crop subsidies."
Exactly. The fact that grass-finished beef is becoming more expensive is a sign that there is great demand for it, and indeed, US production has multiplied dramatically since the 1980s. Every pound of locally produced, grass-finished beef we eat is several dollars going directly to local farmers and abattoirs -- and, more importantly, not going to Monsanto, ADM, Cargill, or other giant, destructive agribusinesses. Unlike a vegan diet of grains, which is dependent on GMO soy and bases its entire moral superiority on eating somewhat less of it.
Your argument that food aid actually hurts countries in the long run is, I think, good. Remember Live Aid? "USA for Africa"? "We Are The World?" We were going to solve all of Ethiopia's problems, right? Twenty-five years later, Ethiopia's population is double what it was then, and their people are still starving...because you've got 88 million people living in a desert, and their population doubles every 22 years or so, because each Ethiopian woman has, on average, nine children.
Eating less meat means nothing in the face of third world population growth, and sending the surplus to Africa just means more hungry Africans to feed next year.
JS
8:14 pm
[...] To read the whole article click here: http://www.gnolls.org/1444/does-meat-rot-in-your-colon-no-what-does-beans-grains-and-vegetables/ [...]
9:01 am
Nice post, nice site.
Just some nitpicks - I think starch is digested primarily through amylase and taken up as glucose - you will find out the difference eating rice compared to rhamnose/inulin veggies
Also, is it true that we have absolutely no gut bacteria that can digest cellulose? That would be most remarkable, giving the myriads of strains living in us. I would rather think our digestive system, lacking rumens or any length, with passage times of about 2 days, is simply not equipped to digest it. Cracking cellulose seems to require about a week and lots of fermentation, and, uh, re-chewing, so even if we do have the bacteria, they do not do much.
9:59 pm
February 22, 2010
gollum:
Starch is indeed digested by amylase and taken up as glucose: I thought I made that clear in the article. I'll take another look at the wording.
I think the reality is that a very small amount of cellulose gets digested in the colon...but it's already past the small intestine, which is where the bacterial waste products would be absorbed. That's the problem with vitamin B12: it's produced by gut bacteria. So ruminants get plenty of B12 because they barf their half-digested food back up and run it through again: humans just poop it out.
In other words, you can get plenty of B12 as a vegan so long as you eat your own poop.
JS
10:13 am
I like to think that herbivores are actually carnivorous......
by that I mean that where they actually get their nutrition is by digesting the microorganisms from the "farms" in their digestive systems. these microorganisms are actually the true herbivores.
3:42 pm
We all must listen to our UNIQUE digestive systems....EVOLUTION is key to how our bodies work!!
7:11 pm
I loved it - great info and entertaining, too! I posted it to my wall 🙂
3:57 am
Hey JS;
What do you think of Jon Barron's report about the Paleo Diet ?
http://www.jonbarron.org/weight-loss/paleo-diet-review-good-bad
Also what's your thought on the Weston A. Price Foundation Healthy guideline to eating?
http://www.westonaprice.org/abcs-of-nutrition/1950-comments-on-the-usda-dietary-guidelines
9:02 am
Great Article!!! Because something is labeled "food" doesn't mean humans were designed to eat it.
10:55 am
To follow Eric's comment, Jon Barron says the following in the article Eric referenced (http://www.jonbarron.org/weight-loss/paleo-diet-review-good-bad):
"To me, a much better indicator of what foods we are designed to eat is your digestive tract -- from your mouth to your anus. Animals that eat particular foods have digestive tracts designed to handle those foods. Carnivores have sharp teeth for ripping and tearing flesh, and short digestive tracts for quickly eliminating waste once digested in the stomach -- so it doesn't have time to putrefy in the intestines. (Meat putrefies.) Animals that eat plants have flat teeth for grinding and long digestive systems to allow time to extract nutrients from plant matter, which does not putrefy. Human digestive systems largely match Chimpanzees, who eat mostly fruits and nuts and termites, but will eat a small amount of monkey meat when they can get it. For more on this issue, you can check out my series examining the digestive system."
My personal objections to Mr. Barron's objections to the Paleo diet have to do with his seemingly flawed understanding of what Paleo has come to mean. He sets up the straw man argument that those advocating a Paleo diet do so upon a flawed ideological adherence to emulating and romanticizing the diet of those throughout the era. See:
" -Since most cave people cooked their meat, eating raw meat denies the foundation of the Paleo Diet -- i.e., eating what cavemen ate.
-On the other hand, if you do cook your meat, then you're doing something potentially unhealthy, which denies the premise of the Paleo Diet -- that if cavemen did it, it's good for you.
-And when did people first start marinating meat, which makes cooked meat healthier -- something that certainly started happening after the Paleolithic era?"
The premise is NOT "that if cavemen did it, it's good for you." Rather, our genes have developed to anticipate such a diet and lifestyle. This doesn't mean we should emulate the way our ancestors lived to a T, but rather make a conscious effort towards acknowledging how our straying from history may be impacting us in negative ways.
Personally, I read Mr. Barron's article as if he were trying to deconstruct the Paleo diet by "finding" logical inconsistencies behind the rationalization of adherence. It showed to me a general lack of understanding for what Paleo means... something that is still evolving in its own right.
2:03 pm
So if I am understanding all the Science...
If I absorb as absolute truth all the JS BS
and I eat a huge Prime Rib of Bull
I will not produce any BS as waste!!!
4:07 pm
February 22, 2010
Conti:
The Perfect Health Diet makes the point that ruminants and carnivores are absorbing basically the same nutrients, and that what goes into your mouth isn't what you're absorbing.
Susan:
Very little makes sense outside the light of evolution.
Jennifer:
I think it caught fire when you posted it to FB, because this article is suddenly getting a boatload of views. Thank you!
Eric:
I'm with the WAPF all the way up to the grains and legumes: sprouting and soaking helps some, but at the end of the day I'd rather just avoid them altogether. But I agree with most of what they say, and I support their work (as does, I believe, most of the paleo community.)
As far as Jon Barron's article, he lost my respect right away when he said "Food really falls into one of only three groups: proteins, fats, and carbohydrates." Linoleic acid != trans-eliadic acid != DHA != lauric acid, glucose != fructose. Anyone who doesn't understand that that has no business giving anyone nutritional advice.
And this article has already debunked his ridiculous claim that "Carnivores have sharp teeth for ripping and tearing flesh, and short digestive tracts for quickly eliminating waste once digested in the stomach -- so it doesn't have time to putrefy in the intestines. (Meat putrefies.)" No, meat doesn't putrefy -- beans, grains, and vegetables putrefy, as the basic biochemistry I've demonstrated above makes clear. This statement alone makes it clear that he's a veg*an with an agenda -- and vegetarianism is a religious belief, not a logical one.
He makes this even clearer when he refers positively to the fraudulent T. Colin Campbell misrepresentation of the China Study data. Here's what the data actually says.
And he continues with a whole raft of counterfactual statements: just for starters, Indian vegetarians have higher rates of heart disease than Indian meat-eaters. I don't have time to debunk all the other outright lies and baloney Barron spews in that article...but if you have specific questions about specific statements he makes, I can probably address them.
I agree with him on one minor point: salt isn't the devil. Other than that, his article is baloney from start to finish. Remember that he's a supplement huckster, and paleo eaters (unlike vegans) don't need a cabinet full of expensive supplements to be healthy.
Chris:
Absolutely. As I mention here, "If it has more than one layer of packaging, contains any ingredient you don’t understand, claims any health benefits on the label, or is a fake version of something else, it’s not food."
Tyler:
You're making the mistake of taking Barron's article seriously. He's a veg*an and a supplement huckster, and many of his confident statements are totally false.
Nick:
A meaningful fraction of poop comes from dead bacteria and dead blood cells: even fasting people generate some poop. But since meat and fat are completely digested, you'll produce less poop than you will from an equivalent amount of calories in the form of grains. I've noticed that I don't poop nearly as much as I used to unless I eat a lot of fibrous vegetables.
JS
Most Users Ever Online: 230
Currently Online:
27 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1770
Members: 10431
Moderators: 0
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 2
Topics: 250
Posts: 7108
Newest Members:
Earn money now sezobnachalsa.blogspot.com QE, Click and earn money sezobnachalsa.blogspot.com QD, Earn money now vlojennenujnberi.blogspot.com vn, Make cash online vlojennenujnberi.blogspot.com Jq, Make big money podelmod.blogspot.com Om, Click and earn money vlojennenujnberi.blogspot.com kyAdministrators: J. Stanton: 2045