My only point was that in light of McDougall's perspective, wouldn't it be more appropriate to balance the intake of animal proteins and fats with tubers, fruits and nuts? Going to the extreme of a pure raw meat diet sounds better suited for the Neanderthal--that is, if you found your argument along historical traditions of our primitive predecessors.
Possibly. Even Lex suggests that most people might be better off including a little salad and berries in their diet, and there's some evidence from the diet-book-Dr. McDougall and others that starches can be beneficial, but I don't know for sure.
Today's cooked tubers like potatoes and sweet potatoes weren't consumed by Stone Agers, but are instead stand-ins for Stone Age foods (which I've never seen Dr. McDougall or Don Matesz or any other promoter of cooked tubers discuss). Where I suspect that Dr. McDougall and others go wrong is in (apparently) assuming that today's cooked tubers are equally as beneficial as Stone Age African tubers. One thing I found in my readings is that some of the African tubers that were consumed by Stone Agers were actually legume tubers that are edible raw (and most of the others were apparently herb tubers). Thus, they were probably more like jicama (another legume tuber) than potatoes. Ground nuts were also eaten raw. They are also legumes and the closest equivalent in the USA is peanuts. Does this mean I should eat lots of tuberous or nutty legumes that are edible raw? Not necessarily. Besides, these foods are much rarer in the USA than in Africa. I've never seen raw peanuts for sale and the only legume tuber I've seen for sale so far is jicama and there's no guarantee that it's as healthy as African legume tubers (though I just bought one, coincidentally--I'm giving it another try after not liking it at all on first try, and so far I'm liking it better).
Obviously, the effects of the modern SAD diet are detrimental for the gene pool of homo-sapiens, but my curiosity lies in the implications of a zero-carb diet for homo-sapiens. I suppose, when reflected upon, there may be some answers in cultures, that although being homo-sapiens, still rely a diet predominantly consisting of animal foods, such as the Inuit.
One must be careful when making conclusions based on the Inuit or any other single extreme culture, as their genetics may be different from yours and the foods available to them likely were/are (for example, you probably can't get whale or seal where you are). I would look at all the hunter gatherer and traditional peoples rather than focus on a single culture.
The idea of eating only cooked muscle meat, butter and water like some at ZIOH do never made sense to me and has no equivalent in Inuit or any other culture. Eating some meat raw and including organs and marrow or suet like Lex does makes a hell of a lot more sense (I think that most folks who exclude organs and fat depot foods from their diet do so more because of taste preference and social reasons than real health reasons--for example, CW admitted to not eating liver because he can't stand the taste--and they tend to seek info that will justify their preference to not eat these foods, which appears to be an unwise course), but is not necessarily optimal for all in the long run. There are no guarantees.
Upon first pondering the idea of homo-sapiens thriving on a mixed diet I thought the idea of a zero-carb diet suddenly seemed foolish, but I suppose there are examples of homo-sapiens thriving on such diets despite the hypothesis McDougall proposes.
I don't think humans are limited to Inuit or Dr. McDougall diets. If that were the case then I doubt that humans would have come to dominate the planet. Our flexibility and adaptability enabled that. For that reason I'm comfortable with people calling us omnivores, regardless of whether an omnivore diet is necessarily optimal or not and whether the term is scientific or not. I'm also comfortable with the term "facultative faunivore" and and maybe even "facultative starchivore" (a diet emphasizing roots, tubers that are edible raw, nuts and organs like liver, with other foods?).
As Lex has said, no one really knows for sure what Stone Agers ate or what the optimal diet is for humans, so when someone says that the Inuit diet or the McDougall diet is optimal for all, it seems more like wishful thinking than science.
I'm comfortable with uncertainty re: humans as a whole, though it's interesting to explore. What's more relevant to me is whether I can further improve my remaining health issues. If an Inuit diet will do it, then fine, if Dr. McDougall's starchy diet, then fine. So far for me it's been more Inuit-like than McDougall-like that has been working for me, but that says nothing about what will work for you. It's up to you to figure that out.
To bring us back on topic, it's also the case that no one knows for sure (yet) whether humans are optimally adapted to run long distances rather than sprint. So scientists and bloggers will probably continue to debate various forms of both diet and exercise for the foreseeable future.
My current guess on diet for me, based on what I've learned and experienced, is to eat a hunter-gatherer-style diet composed of the foods I seem to tolerate best, which happens to be foods that don't require cooking, interestingly, and happens to be low carb (but others report faring better on high carb). As for exercise, both the Tarahumara and world-class sprinters seem to be rather healthy, so either method may be beneficial. I like the way that sprinters and weight lifters look better than the way the Tarahumara look, so I tilt more in the sprinter direction, but I don't know that it's necessarily healthier. Art De Vany and others think it is, but Born to Run says otherwise and no one really knows for certain. It's an interesting puzzle--maybe both are equally healthy. If I had to guess I would say a mixture of the two might be best for most (such as occasional long-distance running and more frequent sprinting and weight lifting of a MovNat natural sort, done outdoors and in nature as much as possible), with individual genetic variation.
It's info like the following that prevents me from ruling out meat-heavy diets as potentially healthy for some people:
H. ergaster seems to have evolved during a long period of terrible drought which dried out tropical rainforests and created vast deserts.
This human species was equipped to cope with heat. They would have been smooth and largely hairless, allowing them to sweat more efficiently. H. ergaster could also travel and hunt in the middle of the day, when most animals rest.
And we know that he travelled long distances because he did not stay in Africa. A hungry meat eater, ergaster became the first human to leave Africa and colonise Asia.
(Why is there only one human species? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13874671)
Topic: Born to run - Tarahumara, Barefoot running, POSE method, Chi running, Egoscue... (Read 35106 times)