Paleolithic Diet II

As a continuing consideration, what our distant ancestors consumed some 10,000 to 1.8 million years ago is assumed (by proponents of this diet) to be a genetically superior approach to food consumption as our gastrointestinal systems evolved over many thousands of years exposed to these foods. The assumption can take on some rather technical biochemical arguments but in general assumes that by switching our current diets to those diets of the ancient ones, our health will improve. Needless to say, and anyone reading this blog for any period of time knows, I just love to poke holes in perfectly good theories.

First off, determining what the various hominids consumed on a regular basis is no easy feat. And by "various hominids" I mean during that "paleolithic" time frame it's not fair to pick a hominid like Homo Rhodesiensis and ignore Neaderthal. or to focus just on Homo Sapiens and ignore Homo erectus.

Assuming we do just that and ignore all hominids other than Homo Sapiens, the precise dietary intake is generally refered to as the omnivore diet which in reality is a garbage can term used to describe someone who eats anything and everything. Anthropological and current biochemical requirements describe a mammal eating sources of vitamin C to survive (fruits and vegetables) and requiring meats as a source of B12. That much can be extrapolated from current human biology. In addition to that, folate or vitamin B9 can be acquired from greens or liver. The real observation that deserves noting isn't the particular foods they ate at any given time, but rather thier lifestyles.

Early Homo Sapiens were thought to have evolved some 200,000 years ago in Africa. The nature of the evolving species was one of nomadic movement. A family or band following foods and in search of better hunter/gatherer regions. The particular foods and sources of protein encountered by those moving bands as they migrated to different geograpic regions, changed over time. Indeed fishing became a means of finding food some 50,000 years ago in some regions. Most antropologists do find that early man focused on the geography around bodies of static or running water.

More after we eat some mammoth liver

WG

Paleolithic Diet

The Paleolithic Diet is an approach to diet and health that takes a few (large) steps back in time. To give it perspective, in geologic time the cenozoic era ranges from 65 million years to the present. Within the cenaozoic era a number of periods are distinct, namely and of relevance to this topic, the pleistocene. The pleistocene ranges from 1.8 million years to 10,000 years ago. A number of glaciations occured during that time; however the real planetary change came about as humans began to expand their numbers and range. The pleistocene saw an explosion of life in the interglacial periods with plants, insects, mollusks, mammals and birds flourishing. That explosion of life gave rise to the growing hominid population.

The Paleolithic Diet refers to the method of survival typifying homo sapiens which in essence was a hunter gatherer diet until agricultural methods were developed in the fertile crescent near the end of the pleistocene and the beginning of the holocene. The Paleolithic Diet then assumes that having evolved in the environment of a bounty of wild foods, our gastrointestinal systems are genetically adapted to consuming those hunter gatherer foods. The hypothesis extending from that observation is that optimal health might be achieved by eating those foods we evolved with. From there, how might that hypothesis really gain traction?

The first aspect of this diet that requires deeper consideration is a review of the foods commonly eaten by the hominid inhabitants of the globe in the pleistocene. To begin that investigation understand that the following time line is fairly well accepted in terms of evolution:

1. 2.8 million years ago: The appearance of stone tools

2. 1.5 million years ago: Controlled fire appeared

3. 200-300, 000 years ago: Cooking hearths

4. 100,000 years ago: Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal appeared

What difference does any of that time line make in the inferences regarding what a paleolithic diet consisted of. The big question is not WHAT was eaten, but rather HOW it was eaten. That is, was everything cooked or eaten raw? And considering the huge time span of what we consider "paleolithic" the early hominids may have eaten mostly raw foods, then later ancestors (having discovered the fire) began to cook foods.

More after you clean your room,

WG

The Meaning of Blogs

Blogs are a great way to just blurt out thoughts and ideas in a vaccum--something akin to a tree falling in the forest. If a blog is written and has no impact, did it exist at all? Maybe I'm waxing a little too existential, but as a medium of intellectual exchange, the blog is a little like the fourteenth or fifteenth bite of a large piece of chocolate cake; the taste is exquisite, but getting monotonous; the sensory experience is no longer new, and we seem to continue for the sake of continuing. Eat the entire wedge. We focus on getting the job done and getting that darn piece of cake consumed in it's entirety. The blog functions in the same way, we have this entity to deal with and we focus on it till the job is done.

The problem some blogs highlight is one of quantity not quality. If the blog has a large readership and a variety of viewpoints are expressed it keeps the quality of the blog lively and readable. If one or two people dominate the blog the comments become stilted and single-minded. My blog has features of both: I dominate it and I'm the only one to read it, therefore I'm single-minded and somewhat stilted in my approach. I occasionally leave terse comments to myself signed with an alias.

"The position you take is untenable. The argument you make is undefendable and the examples you give are unenvisionable. Go back to where you came from, but leave your wallet."

No Country for Old Cows

The almost ubiquitous nature of beef and beef products in the food chain leaves a tremendous amount of room for unscrupulous live animal wholesalers to sneak "downer cattle" into the slaughter houses. But what risk do those downer cattle impose upon us? Is Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy a real risk? Or might it represent a pumped up means of garnering headline splash in a time when Brittany falling off the wagon or multi-car pileups dominate our visual news space. In that vein, how many documented cases of BSE have been recorded on American soil? That is, how real is the threat?

First off, the term for BSE is Variant Jacob Creutzfeldt disease or VJCD. And according to the CDC:

"Since variant CJD was first reported in 1996, a total of 200 patients with this disease from 11 countries have been identified. As of November 2006, variant CJD cases have been reported from the following countries: 164 from the United Kingdom, 21 from France, 4 from Ireland, 3 from the United States, 2 in the Netherlands, and one each from Canada, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, and Spain. Two of the three U.S. cases, two of the four cases from Ireland and the single cases from Canada and Japan were likely exposed to the BSE agent while residing in the United Kingdom. One of the 20 French cases may also have been infected in the United Kingdom."

However much fuss we make about the despicable nature of mistreating cows near the end of their lives at meat packing/slaughter houses, the real threat is to our sensibilities and care of fellow creatures than the risk of contracting a disease. As unsavory as the pictures were from the Humane Society last week, the real threat is one of animal rights.

Thus I make an almost silent plea to those of you still eating beef. Let old cows die in peace on a sunny day in the middle of a clover patch, not at the hands of a fork lift operator. If fewer of us eat beef and beef products, the need to push aging dairy cattle into the beef pipeline might dry up.

Yet Another Beef Recall (after it's been eaten)??

How in the world do you recall 142 million pounds of beef after most of it has already been consumed? And most of it consumed by unsuspecting children at 150 public schools. Circling the wagons yesterday on NPR, a female spokesperson for the beef lobby declared the meat in this country to be safe and "As a mom" she's not concerned in the least. It was a random check by the Human Society of America that happened along Hallmark Meat Packing Company in California only to find cattle being unceremoniously scooped up by fork lifts and jabbed with electric prods to get them on their feet for slaughter. James O. Reagan, chairman of the Beef Industry Food Safety Council of the National Cattleman's Beef Association agrees with the recall but declares the beef supply in America to be safe. The Secretary of Agriculture, Ed Schafer announced the recall and echoed the same sentiment, that is, the beef supply is safe. Safe that is until the Humane Society does another undercover investigation.

I for one am sick and tired of beef recalls due to unfit cattle being propped up for slaughter. If these animals are too sick and old to stay ahoof, why in the world are they ending up in the food chain? How can any conscionable person allow these inhumane practices to go on; and how can "A mom" declare publicly she's not concerned with the beef industry in this country. Please, spare me the rhetoric.

Without hesitation I declare the beef industry to be unsafe. Until the USDA takes the inspection practice of slaughter houses seriously and stops this wholesale pollution of the beef supply, the beef offerings (mostly to public schools and food programs) should be considered tainted until proven otherwise.

WG

Metabolism

Metabolism, as I outlined two blogs ago, is the energy needed in cells to do the work of living. The net calories needed to maintain organ systems, a very basic consideration is called the Resting Energy Expenditure or REE. The REE or basal metabolic rate is the energy it takes to keep us alive for a twenty-four hour period not taking into account the other two broad areas of caloric need, namely, physical activity and the energy expenditure in digesting and absorbing food, the thermic effect of food. Imagine the REE as the energy it takes to sit in an easy chair watching television and not moving. It encompasses the energy required to maintain a healthy liver, spleen, intestinal system, brain and so on.

As mentioned before, colloquially referring to someone’s “metabolism” as being high or low, neglects the nuances of the system. REE alone (sometimes referred to as the basal metabolic rate), again, refer to just the bare bones caloric needs to keep one alive. The magnitude of the difference between the REE and basal metabolic rate (BMR) is small and includes distinctions primarily needed for research protocols. Suffice it to say the REE is the daily cost in calories that it takes to just maintain living organ systems. And the energy it takes to keep a 15 year olds liver healthy is mimimally different than a 67 year old liver. Therefore, and there is some measure of controversy here, the REE does not change appreciably with age.

More when you have more time,

WG

Get on the Bandwagon

I love popular diet literature's use of the term "metabolism." There is nary a more confused term batted about than this essence of cellular fuel useage, better known as aerobic and anerobic metabolism. Before diving into that distinction, what distinguishes human metabolism from numerous fuel burnning systems, is the lack of linguistic imagination. If automobiles were humans, and engines were cellular metabolism, then food would be . . . gasoline. Snap, it's linguistic genius. Yet the real motivation for the analogy is the examination of the gas tank or fuel source.

The analogy takes a twist when we consider the gas tank. Humans don't really have a gas tank or do they? Adipose tissue or fat serves as a reserve fuel when immediate fuel sources run low. Usually we cycle through all our glycogen first, but as that's running low an increasing futile cycle of protein breakdown sends amino acids into cells to be burned as fuel. Finally, at about 5 to 7 days of starvation, amino acid cycling slows down to conserve protein and fat from adipose is almost exclusively used by cells as a fuel source.

More when you're older,

WG

Tis The Season

My favorite time of year is diet season. From Christmas to around FebuMarch, the dieters come out in droves. My thoughts on dieting run from concern to suspicion. The terminology used by dieters, the concepts, and the diet formulas used--as well as the various tools necessary to put those formulas to work, are at first glance more depth than the average dieter might wish to wade into. After all, to really engage in a serious weight loss plan one is required to estimate energy needs balanced with energy expenditure. And that my friends, requires some knowledge and understanding of human metabolism.

Human metabolism is the rate at which we utilize fuel—with fuel being foods we consume containing glucose, protein and fat. The term metabolism is somewhat vague and gets used interchangeably with other more specific terms describing energy needs. In general, humming birds have a very high metabolic rate given their size, and other more slow moving mammals like the sloth, have a much lower energy requirement per unit body mass. What we generally refer to as our “metabolism” is actually a collection of energy considerations involving how active we are, our size, gender and age. Generally, the rate of metabolism (number of kcals used per hour on average) takes into account factors like how much we’ve eaten in the last 12 hours, how active we are and other vague and difficult to estimate notions like the amount of stress we are under, our sleep patterns, our hormonal levels and much more. To estimate the energy needs of an individual, we can’t take into account things such as emotional state, hormonal balance, frequency of meals and a host of other variables that may actually impact energy needs; in place of an exact measure, we use three components that are estimated. Therefore, to estimate daily caloric needs, we divide the overall concept of metabolism into three subcategories to consider:

1. Resting Energy Expenditure (Basal metabolic rate)
2. Thermic Effect of Food (energy cost of digestion and absorption)
3. Daily Physical Activity

Being able to estimate those components of daily living allows us to get a rough estimate of the total daily energy requirements--allowing us to again estimate how many calories to take in to actually lose weight. We can measure directly and indirectly the total energy expenditure but it involves expensive equipment and again, isn’t readily available to the general public. Calculations of energy requirements are available and easy to use, but again, to arrive at an estimate we need to cover the three basic areas of daily energy expenditure.

More Later

Battle of the Titans

In the nearly perpetual debate regarding which sandwich meat is better for you, bologna versus Spam, I feel the need to weigh in. Visually, and from the perspective of global greenness, Spam loses on both counts. Meat in a funky can is without question a waste of resources. In fact the cans might be used as body armor if the need were to arise. Bologna on the other hand usually comes in a plastic container and as we all know plastic polymers can break down in the environment, but never fully biodegrade.

In the category of unique nomenclature, Spam wins. Spam as it turns out stands for Shoulder of Pork with Ham, thus Spam. Adding ham to pork shoulder seems redundant, but what do I know about mass produced meat. In the category of historical sandwich meats with excessive sodium, it's nearly a tie, both have roughly 300+ mg of salt with Spam on the higher end and bologna nearer to 300 mg.

Lets tackle the fat comparison. And by that I mean the atherosclerotic, inflammation promoting saturated fat content. Surprisingly, Spam wins by a nose. Spam contains 2.76 grms per serving and bologna contains 3.12 grams. Comparing monounsaturated fat content, that "good fat" we all seek when choosing a Mediterranean diet, Spam is the winner again! A Spam serving has 3.9 grams and bologna has 3.4 grams. Now if bologna or Spam are fried, all bets are off and we immediately leave the Mediterannean for Scotland unless the cooking oil is known.

In the "other nutrients" category a few notable differences. Bologna is relatively high in zinc and contains 10 micrograms of fluoride. The kids can brush with it! Bologna also has a whopping 20 IU of vitamin A.

Finally, in the pop-culture, underground cookbook category, Spam wins hands down with recipes like Spam-cream, a variation on a popular frozen dairy product. And Spam-berry jam to accompany those peanut butter spreads. Lastly, Spam can be used as an industrial lubricant and for those with hard to hold hair and no gell, Spam-spray can hold those rebel locks in place for days. However, avoid dogs.

Wow, a new post. I bet you thought I had died. Well I may be alive, but I'm not claiming life in it's entirety just yet. In response to some well put criticism of this blog I'm changing the format: Instead of the usual crisp review of salient nutrition topics, I'm going to lie, give false promises and take anyone's money. As it turns out, I have a way to flatten abs without changing a thing. Just send me the small sum of $43.99 and I will send you the ab flattening diet. It's simple. Place carrots on your stomach at night for seven nights and by the eighth night your abs will be six-pack quality. It seems as though carrots selectively draw adipose from interstitial abdominal sites. I can't give references . . . but I feel good about it.