Cooking

[chuck5855]

Thought this was interesting until the article talks about cooking. Any thoughts on the cooking/digesting part, especially lack of energy?

http://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128849908/food-for-thought-meat-based-diet-made-us-smarter

[Projectile Vomit]

I think Wrangham's ideas are built on a lot of assumptions that, as best I can tell, have yet to be investigated quantitatively. Most of the studies he cites were terribly designed, and can't really provide the weight of evidence he claims.

[van]

I find these kind of arguments annoying, in that they try to convince others on something they merely are speculating about,,  especially considering he's a vegetarian.  Which means he has no direct experience of eating meat raw as compared to cooked.  It's been too long for me to comment on the amount of energy I got from eating cooked meat.   But I can promise you one thing,,  I most assuredly at it with bread or potatoes, or pie.....   Show me the studies where someone has gone from low carb raw meat diet (high fat) to to the same diet with simply cooking the meat and fat.   I would really like to see that one. And what numbers of candidates were in the study and details...     
     I wish his dinner guest had the question for him about denatured proteins etc.. 

[PaleoPhil]

Wrangham claims to not be vegetarian, but he has revealed that he comes so close to it, that he does have quite an incentive for bias:

Richard Wrangham, July 10, 2009 at 1:46 PM: "I am not vegetarian, but it is 32 years since I have eaten mammals except for twice under really unusual circumstances. My non-mammal-eating has nothing to do with my research on food. I just prefer not to eat anything that I would not kill." http://www.world-science.org/forum/richard-wrangham/

Brain growth among our hominid ancestors began before even Wrangham's earliest estimate for cooking, and the latest hypothesis is that raw sedge grass tubers (called tiger nuts or chufas) had something to do with that. Tubers may turn out to be very important in the evolution of brain growth--to what extent and how much of that is due to the cooking of them is quite open to question.

Wrangham does tend to present speculative opinions as though they were obvious facts.

[eveheart]

Although a well-regarded primatologist before his cooking hypothesis, Wrangham owes much of his public success to his cooking hypothesis, but it's just that: a hypothesis (googled definitions: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation, a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.) There's always a problem when you try to turn a hypothesis into a truth.

I can't fault him, though. I, too, wonder why man is the only animal to routinely cook its food, especially now that I know my personal benefits of eating food raw. If my caveman son offered me a juicy brontosaurus burger, I'd have to tell him that he ruined a perfectly good piece of meat.

[Chris]

Very interesting article. When you stop and think about it. It makes a lot of sense. Energy and nutrition wise. I've been eating raw for well over 3 years now. I know what he's saying when he talks about loosing weight and energy on a raw meat/fat diet. It's true. I can gorge myself on raw meat and fat and still loose weight.

I'll be honest. If I don't workout with resistance weights. I'd be skin and bones! I think there is something to this cooked food argument. Problem is, "almost" everybody eats raw food on this site at one form or another. But, there's also a lot of people on this site that do eat cooked food too.

Plus, this is just my opinion here. Raw meat/fat doesn't give the energy boost that I expected. Granted, I enjoy eating raw meat and fat. But, I'm wondering if I should change it up and try something new. I have a tendency to try things in stages and see how my body responds. I personally have found that Raw Meat is not this wonder food that I was hoping for. I find it rather laughable when I hear of postings of a possible cure all with some of you. Almost like you're hoping for raw meat/fat to cure all your problems and issues. But, to each their own. I'm not here to judge or be critical. All of us are on our own separate journeys here. 

But, I am always open to new ideas and thoughts. I just thought I'd put my two cents worth in the pot. Great topic (finally).

I realize that most people on this site will disagree. I expect that! You have to be open to ideas in this world in order to accept them. My mind is always open to that! Peace.

[van]

Good, you'd be the perfect test case.  Doesn't sound like you eat many carbs.  How about keeping your diet exactly as it is, and simply cook your meat and fat, and see if you gain weight and energy.   And of course you'd have to  keep the amounts the same,  i.e., grams of meat and fat per meal per day.   I'd love to hear your results.     

    But as I said before, when you leave the raw diet, most will also include other foods into their diet,, such as more carbs (especially cooked carbs) and hence one would then naturally induce more insulin and put on weight,  and have subsequently  more sugar in the blood to fuel for more energy.   

    Please let us know if you plan to do this.   Also I'll throw in, similarly to those who initially go on a diet of high proportions of raw fruit, they too will in the beginning feel lots of energy from all the abundant fructose.   And over time, for many, they will have to eat larger and larger meals of fruit to maintain that 'high',, eventually wasting from such a diet.     Thus you may want to keep tabs on how you are doing after several  months to a couple of years of eating cooked meat and fat.    The changes may be subtle. 

[TylerDurden]

PP is right in stating that the growth in hominid brain-size occurred well before the advent of cooking. He is however quite wrong re tubers being responsible for increased brain-size as it has been shown that  average hominid brain-size actually decreased when lots of starchy foods like tubers were introduced into the human diet in the neolithic era.

I strongly suspect that Wrangham is deliberately lying when he cited a raw diet,  containing some raw meat in it, as preventing women from menstruating. Last I checked, the study referred to a 100% raw vegan diet. The trouble is that, up till very recently, most scientists assumed automatically that a "raw food diet" inevitably meant a 100% raw plant food diet as they simply could not imagine that any human  could eat a raw meat diet.
Wrangham also made some very stupid claims before, such as the one that, since chimps supposedly need c.6 hours to chew their food every day(?), that therefore raw-meat-eating humans would have to do the same. Complete nonsense.

His claims re raw food leading to weight-loss are also bogus. Eating raw foods does seem to normalise weight, so there have been cases where underweight people started gaining weight on a raw meat diet.


And, Chris, there are actually many people here, myself included,  who started out with countless health problems and managed to cure them all with the help of this raw diet, so your suggestion is actually rather "laughable" in itself.
 I , for example, used to have chronic fatigue, among many other conditions,  pre-Rawpalaeodiet, and my energy levels soared when I switched to this diet.

[PaleoPhil]

PP is right in stating that the growth in hominid brain-size occurred well before the advent of cooking. He is however quite wrong re tubers being responsible for increased brain-size as it has been shown that  average hominid brain-size actually decreased when lots of starchy foods like tubers were introduced into the human diet in the neolithic era.

I said that it may  turn out that tubers were important in brain growth, and there are other possible factors too, such as increased meat/fat eating (brains, marrow and fish have been hypothesized by scientists) and increased hunting, which I discussed before.

Tubers, such as sedge grass tubers for example, were not introduced into the human diet during the neolithic. They go back millions of years.

Two million years ago, human relative 'Nutcracker Man' lived on tiger nuts
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140109003949.htm

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/eating-paleo-dont-forget-worms-and-tubers-140110.htm

Did Our Ancestors Prefer Meat or Potatoes? [meaning tubers, not literally potatoes]
Findings show that our relatives liked to dig up underground foods
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21775270/ns/technology_and_science-science#.VC0w8vk7sts

Sex Differences in Food Preferences of Hadza Hunter-Gatherers, http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP07601616.pdf

Gut microbiome of the Hadza hunter-gatherers

http://huntgatherlove.com/content/siberian-potatoes

"One interesting food plant used by Stone-Age man was the water chestnut, which now grow in the lakes as far north as Lithuania. Water chestnuts have also been found in old sediment deposits, such as those in Lake Jäkälä at Savitaipale." http://www3.lappeenranta.fi/museot/museo/english/karjala_elo.html
[Note: water chestnuts are interestingly similar to tiger nuts. Both are sedge grass tubers.]

etc., etc.

[TylerDurden]

Hmm, I recall once referring to a study showing that the Hadza  actually loathed tubers and only used them as a last resort when other foods were unavailable. As reagrds tubers, the whole point is that tubers are starchy foods and the average hominid brain-size dramatically decreased once they incorporated lots more starchy(non-tuber) foods in their diet. So, tubers are highly unlikely to have led to bigger hominid brains.

I anyway do NOT believe that food of any kind led to bigger human brains. Sure, just switching to a raw meat diet from a mostly raw plant food diet would have helped to gain the sort of bigger brains that carnivores have, but the increase to modern human-size brains requires some other evolutionary impetus.

Hmm, I hope that scientists will soon manage to bring back the Neanderthals via DNA-sciences. Given the cold-climate/intelligence theory and the significantly bigger brains of Neanderthals, I strongly suspect that the Neanderthals were far more intelligent on average than modern humans.

[PaleoPhil]

Yes, I recall your strange interpretation of that study and noted at the time that it didn't fit well with what was in the actual study report. Your views on ancestral underground storage organs (tubers, roots, corms, bulbs, rhizomes and such) don't bother me, as I'm not out to convert the committed, just share info with anyone who is truly interested.

Coincidentally, I recently met Jeff Leach, the guy who is currently researching the dwindling number of Hadza (aka Hadzabe'e) who are still hunter-gatherers, and saw his presentation, which I agree with Eric was excellent--one of the best Paleo-related presentations I've seen. I highly recommend his presentations and interviews and such to anyone who is able to attend or view online https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9A7E08JoBs or read one of his presentations. Jeff even spent some time living with the Hadza HG’s and eating their food, including the tubers (such as the ekwa tuber mentioned in the study you referred to, which Jeff said some time ago is "tasty"), and I discussed tubers a bit with him. He said that the Hadza eat quite a lot of roots and tubers.



Not all tubers are starchy. Some apparently contain more of other things, like various fibers and/or glucose. Jeff said that the Hadza tubers he ate tasted more fibery than starchy to him, though he also noted that starch content can vary by season and age and size of the tuber, which I have seen reported before.

Brain size did decrease over the last 10 to 50 thousand years (with estimates varying), but it was millions of years after humans and pre-humans had already been consuming tubers and even you cited the figure of 250,000-300,000 years for cooking--long before the advent of the Neolithic. At least you're now blaming non-tubers, rather than tubers, for the recent (in biological terms) brain size decrease.

I agree that food is probably not the whole story in the evolution of brain growth, as I already indicated. Food may be just the fuel that fed the growth triggered by something else, as some scientists have hypothesized. I mentioned one hypothesized factor of (increased and more complex) hunting (such as persistence-tracking hunting)--which required increased intelligence. Another hypothesis I've seen is that cooperation was key (and cooperation is also at play in hunting). At any rate, it's all still speculation, with some early evidence, at this point. I'm open to wherever the evidence takes us.

It would be pretty cool if some Neanderthals were still around. I have long also suspected that Neanderthals were more, rather than less, intelligent than the average H. sapiens sapiens, even of today. Most moderners find it hard to imagine that so-called "savage cavemen" were more intelligent than today's average. I expect that brain degeneration will continue.

"idiocracy is where we are now" - cognitive scientist David Geary, http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

[TylerDurden]

The study in question was actually very clear on the fact that the Hadza only ate tubers as fallback foods and also that the Hadza preferred all other main  foods to tubers:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19350623

[PaleoPhil]

Here is the full text of the study

The key point that you continue to ignore is that tubers were reported in that study to be one of the top 5 staple food types of the Hadza HGs, which they ate throughout more of the year than most other foods, because tubers are available for longer and more abundantly than many other plant foods. Fallback food does not necessarily mean "eaten rarely." It can be quite the opposite--a food that they often "fall back on" and thus eat frequently. Jeff Leach said there was one month where they only had plenty of meat to eat from big game once during the entire month, and so had to "fall back on" tubers quite a bit that month. A food doesn't have to be their top favorite for them to eat it. And quite to the contrary of your claim that the Hadza "loathe" tubers, Jeff reported that ekwa is "tasty." It's also edible raw and Jeff photographed a Hadza girl eating one raw and enjoying it. I think I posted that image somewhere.

Don't worry, I get it--you hate tubers and you won't acknowledge that the Hadza eat many of them, regardless of what scientists and witnesses who live among them say. It's clear that nothing will convince you. Suit yourself.

Ancient Eurasians also ate foods rich in starch and fibers, such as Sarana bulbs, aka "Siberian potatoes." This tradition continued in the Americas, where even some Eskimos ate "Eskimo potatoes." These tubers are not quite like what we typically think of as potatoes, though they are tubers and some of the species called "wild potatoes" do contain starch, IIRC.

Another interesting thing that Jeff Leach reported was that the GI microbiome of the Hadza was extremely similar to that of vervet monkeys and chimpanzees--animals that eat omnivorous diets heavy in fruits and greens. More and more it's looking like GCB and Iguana were right about the natural diet for humans being a tropical, fruit-heavy diet (though also higher in greens, fiber and tubers than most Instinctos probably eat, and with many of the fruits being berries--wild, of course). I doubted that at first, as it seemed like wishful thinking by tropical fruit lovers, based on little evidence, but now the evidence is too strong for me to not take it seriously. My early speculative hypothesis that humans might be more designed to eat a meat-heavy facultative carnivore diet appears to have been dead wrong. I now take very seriously GCB's warning that relying too heavily on meat can be dangerous--not so much because of eating lots of meat, but because of the resulting tendency to not eat a diversity of fiber-rich plant foods. When one does eat a meat-heavy diet, it's probably important for it to be as raw and organ-rich as possible, thus helping to explain why Lex Rooker has fared better than most carnivores in the longer run (though I'm still concerned that what he's doing may be risky--time will tell).

The foods in the image I shared are all important plant foods of the Hadza. Interestingly, figs are an important food for the Hadza, vervet monkeys and chimpanzees. Another key aspect of the Hadza diet that Leach reported is that it is extremely diverse and massively heavier in fiber than what Americans eat. It's not the sort of diet that will thrill many Americans, including me  , but it's what seems to work best to promote a healthy microbiome and prevent the diseases of civilization.

Another difference between the Hadza and Instinctos is that fruits tend to be more of a children's food (except maybe for baobab fruit), probably because fruits are foods that tend to be easily gathered by children. However, what one eats during the growing and developing years of childhood is quite important, so being a "children's food," is not really much of a criticism. It could actually be seen as a strong point. The study only looked at what Hadza HG adults eat. It would be interesting to see a study look at what their children eat.

One of the million dollar questions is "Why are humans still so well adapted to a diet rich in fiber and fruits, and why should a meat-heavy diet low in those foods potentially be problematic, given that hominids have had decent hunting skills going back a couple million years or so?" A question along those lines was asked after Jeff's presentation and he answered that it may be more important what our ancestors were eating 6-7 million years ago (and the microbiota they had) than what they were eating later on. Of course, that wouldn't necessarily mean that there weren't important later dietary changes too.

[TylerDurden]

The KEY  point you continue to ignore is that the tubers were mentioned as being the LEAST  preferred food-group among the Hadza. They are described as fallback foods,  as in" foods to fall back on when other food groups are unavailable". Now, admittedly, an HG existence like the Hadza's means that they usually do not have the best possible food-sources available at all times and so  they may well have to eat tubers more often than they would like, but whether they eat them in quantity or not(and you have by no means proven that), the point is that tubers are low-quality foods and are viewed as such by the Hadza in general. One or two  occasional exceptions, like the ones you cited,  merely prove the rule.

As for a mainly raw  tropical fruit diet, I can safely state, from my own and others' experience, that that leads nowhere. I tried that to some extent and it was nowhere near as helpful as having a raw-meat-heavy diet with a few organs - all that happened was that I was "less worse" re my symptoms but significant improvement only happened with large amounts of raw meats.

[van]

I don't understand why you hold the Hadza's diet as supreme?   If you look at Prices' writings, there have been many groups of peoples who's health have been stellar.  I will say you seem to be cherry picking 'evidence' to support your tuber Uberance.  I mean, so what if they like and eat figs.   Does that mean we're meant to eat fruit, or lot's of it.    I'll repeat myself here and say if you lived in the  wild and walked everywhere and were constantly moving around as opposed to sitting in front of your computer, you'd be able to utilize fructose and all sorts of sugars.  You'd look for calories wherever you could find them.   And, I'm also repeating that high protein diets don't promote longevity or for that matter support diverse colon bacteria.  But consistent moderate protein including meat, can and does especially when combined with other vegetable food stuff.  And I've shared that I share your viewpoint of having RS in the diet and have mentioned what I include in my diet. So there's not a discrepancy there.   
     Another thing I don't get, is tubers have probably always been available to eat.   So, why should tubers have been responsible for the increase of mans brain size.   And if it's the discovery of fire, then less RS would be available if they cooked them...  Please explain your reasoning here.  thanks

[dwelz]

This is definitely an interesting article regardless of what kind of diet you are currently on. Although there does appear to be a bit of speculation by both gentlemen involved, the writer also makes some good points about the history of our eating habits, as does Mr. Wrangham. So,whether or not you agree with the opinions stated, I believe the point of the article is that meat in any form does seem to be beneficial to us humans, whether we like it or not. In fact, this intrigued me to look further into it and I found another related article that folks on this forum might like to read http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/cooking-meats-ancestors.htm

[TylerDurden]

This is definitely an interesting article regardless of what kind of diet you are currently on. Although there does appear to be a bit of speculation by both gentlemen involved, the writer also makes some good points about the history of our eating habits, as does Mr. Wrangham. So,whether or not you agree with the opinions stated, I believe the point of the article is that meat in any form does seem to be beneficial to us humans, whether we like it or not. In fact, this intrigued me to look further into it and I found another related article that folks on this forum might like to read http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/cooking-meats-ancestors.htm

The article spouts such nonsense I am surprised that you did not do some research here and elsewhere on Wrangham and cooking before linking it. The topic should anyway have gone into the Hot Topics forum. have done so now.

To address the various silly points in the article.

1) Cooking destroys nutrients,  at least in  all animal foods and fruits. Here in this paragraph are various references showing the sheer loss of nutrientsd caused by cooking:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism#Effect_of_cooking_on_digestibility_and_allergy

. Cooking does remove the cell walls in some plant foods such as vegetables  and grains so that the nutrients within become more bioavailable(if cooking is done at low temperature, especially) , but since cooking creates additional heat-created toxins, these negate any benefits.

The article is being deceitful in claiming that cooking got started c.1.8 million years ago. In fact, most anthropologists agree that cooking only got started c.250,000-300,000 years ago. Wrangham is also avery dishonest and biased. He is a vegetarian, so not actually and advocate of cooked meat but of cooked tubers and the like. He also made a very obviously bogus claim that chimpanzees needed to chew raw meat for at least 6 hours a day in order to get enough calories therefrom and then suggested that raw foodists somehow "must" be like that. Not only is the chimp reference unlikely to have any validity, but if Wrangham had  even bothered to check with real raw-meat-eating people he would have found out that we actually  take much less time to eat our raw meats by comparison, partly because we do not waste time cooking, but also because we usually bolt down our food rather than chewing it like cooked-foodists do.

The only thing that Wrangham got right was that eating cooked food makes you fat, and that the more one cooks or processes a food, the bigger the weight-gain. Eating raw meat does not necessarily lead to weight-loss either, as some can experience lots of weight-gain if they overeat raw animal foods.

Wrangham also failed to explain the issue of heat-created toxins created by cooking. On being questioned about them, he made some stupid, unsubstantiated statement about how he thought that humans had adapted to such toxins. This is obviously not correct since plentiful evidence exists to show that humans are very badly affected, healthwise, by those very toxins:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism#Toxic_compounds_created_by_cooking

[PaleoPhil]

Tyler, no matter how you try to slice it, the fact remains that both that study and Leach's research report that the Hadza HG's eat plenty of tubers and they do not report that they "loathe" them. They could be wrong, but you haven't provided convincing evidence to refute the research. If you don't believe me, then ask the first-hand witness and researcher, Jeff Leach, yourself like I did. He answers some questions online.

I said "fruit-heavy diet," not "raw tropical fruit diet"--I wasn't trying to imply fruit-only or nearly so. I suspected that you might try that straw man approach, so I also mentioned greens, fiber and tubers (and the traditional Hadza diet also contains meats, insects, nuts, honey, etc., not just fruit). I haven't drawn any firm conclusions on the subject, just pondering it. Iguana's views on it don't seem quite as outlandish to me now, though I doubt that I eat as much fruit as he or GCB do, but who knows.


Van, I didn't say that I hold the Hadza's diet as supreme. Please don't try to put words in my mouth/keyboard. Scientists focus on the Hadza/Hadzabe'e because there is still a small group of them that are living in a manner rather similar to that of Stone Age hunter gatherers, which is an increasingly rare thing (and the last of the traditional Hadza are starting to modernize, so time is running out to study them). Stone Agers are of course long dead and they and their microbiota thus can't be studied (aside from dig-site remains), so living HG groups like the Hadza are the closest thing that scientists have (and they also seek other types of evidence, of course).

Someone asked Jeff the same basic question after his presentation--why the Hadza (even though he had already given some reasons)? He responded by asking "Who would you suggest I study instead?" (He has studied other populations, BTW, and is developing a growing database of evidence).

I suggested the Chukchi to him on his blog. They would be an interesting contrast.

It sounds like we agree that meats, fruits and tubers have all long been part of the human diet. The evidence so far suggests that the consumption of meat and tubers increased as brain size increased, so both have been posited as possible fuel for larger brains (though that doesn't necessarily mean that they triggered the growth, of course).

Re: brain growth, it's not my reasoning, it's the reasoning of some scientists and others. I just shared the fact that the hypothesis exists. Here is one place it was discussed where there is info that touches on your questions: http://drbganimalpharm.blogspot.com/2014/07/legumes-and-potatoes-are-certainly-p-l.html

As for me, I don't know what the primary cause of brain growth was and I am open-minded on the question. I go wherever the best science takes me. The various hypotheses on it are interesting. It will be interesting to see where the research leads on the question.

In the past in this forum I wrote about another hypothesized factor in brain growth of hunting and/or scavenging of marrow and brains and how the Inuit had one of the largest cranium sizes measured. I don't recall you taking issue with my discussing that, nor claiming that I was calling the Inuit diet "supreme," but perhaps I forget? How is it cherry picking for me to discuss BOTH the Hadza and the Inuit (and the Chukchi, Nenets, etc.), whereas it's not for you to only take issue with the Hadza? Do you have a problem with scientists studying the Hadza or people discussing the research? Should we only discuss research on LC groups (such as the "Medicine Men" doctors who studied the heart health markers of Chukchi hunters, which I discussed previously)? Isn't more information helpful in learning, generally?

[van]

 I have little idea as to intact original dieters there might be on the planet.  I simply mentioned that Price was fortunate to have been able to find and study in his ways the health of many  peoples around the world.  My simple point was that almost all societies he studied had great health except for those who's diets had not been altered by western diet influences.   And that they all shared one thing in common, a good source of some animal protein.   I'm sure you're aware of this.  I restate this simply to balance the table of what constitutes a healthy diet.   If your researchers quoted could in theory go to those earlier groups,  they would probably find additional balances of healthy bacteria.  And my guess is that some form of RS existed in all their diets. To what extent RS played a role in 'others' diets, I don't know.   I haven't thought much about  it.       My point on the Tuber creating a bigger brain, I think you missed, was they've been around probably since people existed, and hence have probably been eaten for the same amount of time.  Thus why should those tubers all of a sudden create a bigger brain?  Especially with the introduction at some point of fire, hence cooking the tubers would result in lower levels of RS.   
      I am still not convinced that food for the intestine has to be in the form of this seemingly narrowly defined description of RS.  And maybe this is simply semantics, but I've written before that any undigested fibrous material making it to the large intestines feeds bacteria there.    Which means that everyone is feeding their guts all the time.   You've pointed out the various gut feeding foods found in fresh animal parts.  I've mentioned the effects of seaweed ( which has probably been one of the most used  for of RS for all the peoples living around oceans ) .    What I'm waiting to see from 'Jeff' and others, should they find other societies that eat a completely unadulterated balanced diet from local sources complete with animal proteins, and no additional flour, sugar or cooking oils,,,, how their bacteria counts will compare, especially if they hadn't been treated with antibiotics through their lives.       
   Bottom line as to what I'm trying to say is,   My guess is that all natural diets contain enough beneficial food for healthy colon health.    And it's all the other stuff we consume that messes with it.

[TylerDurden]

Tyler, no matter how you try to slice it, the fact remains that both that study and Leach's research report that the Hadza HG's eat plenty of tubers and they do not report that they "loathe" them.

No they do not talk about the amounts the HGs ate of tubers. In the reports I  cited, they do indeed state , unequivocally, that tubers were the Hadza´s "LEAST PREFERRED FOODS" and that tubers were "FALLBACK FOODS", in other words, foods they  fell back on when nothing else was available. That is , to put it mildly, somewhat indicative that I was correct!

I said "fruit-heavy diet," not "raw tropical fruit diet"--I wasn't trying to imply fruit-only or nearly so. I suspected that you might try that straw man approach, so I also mentioned greens, fiber and tubers (and the traditional Hadza diet also contains meats, insects, nuts, honey, etc., not just fruit). I haven't drawn any firm conclusions on the subject, just pondering it. Iguana's views on it don't seem quite as outlandish to me now, though I doubt that I eat as much fruit as he or GCB do, but who knows.

I was under the impression that iguana eats lots of raw meat, not mostly raw fruit. Whatever the case, diets high in plant food, containing tubers or otherwise, are not as healthy as ones with high proportions of raw meat in them.

Stone Agers are of course long dead and they and their microbiota thus can't be studied (aside from dig-site remains), so living HG groups like the Hadza are the closest thing that scientists have (and they also seek other types of evidence, of course).

The problem with this is that we have little idea what palaeo HGs experienced. One can be reasonably sure, however, that the situation of palaeo HGs was quite different from the Hadza. For example, many palaeo HGs had to migrate across the glaciers in order to hunt wild game,  whereas Hadzas live in much hotter  areas. Plus, in palaeo times, there were the megafauna and a much higher density of wild game than nowadays. So Hadzas ate not typical Palaeo HGs at all.

It sounds like we agree that meats, fruits and tubers have all long been part of the human diet. The evidence so far suggests that the consumption of meat and tubers increased as brain size increased, so both have been posited as possible fuel for larger brains (though that doesn't necessarily mean that they triggered the growth, of course).

As I mentioned earlier, the evidence re tubers being linked to big brains has been long debunked. Wrangham is the main proponent of this theme and he himself has admitted that he has no evidence to support it.

In the past in this forum I wrote about another hypothesized factor in brain growth of hunting and/or scavenging of marrow and brains and how the Inuit had one of the largest cranium sizes measured. I don't recall you taking issue with my discussing that, nor claiming that I was calling the Inuit diet "supreme," but perhaps I forget? How is it cherry picking for me to discuss BOTH the Hadza and the Inuit (and the Chukchi, Nenets, etc.), whereas it's not for you to only take issue with the Hadza? Do you have a problem with scientists studying the Hadza or people discussing the research? Should we only discuss research on LC groups (such as the "Medicine Men" doctors who studied the heart health markers of Chukchi hunters, which I discussed previously)? Isn't more information helpful in learning, generally?

I have previously pointed out flaws with raw zero carb diets and have suggested that the Inuit may be better adapted to them. I do not however think that even the Inuit are a role-model since they are not representative of what palaeo HGs were like.

[PaleoPhil]

I have little idea as to intact original dieters there might be on the planet.

They are few and far between, and the Hadza are one of the better groups to study, and they live in an area that humans have lived in for millions of years, so it's not at all surprising that scientists have studied them.
 

And that they all shared one thing in common, a good source of some animal protein. I'm sure you're aware of this.

Yes, of course, you're preaching to the choir on that. And the Hadza also eat some animal protein (as do all primates, as I discussed extensively in the past), and that wasn't the only thing that all the groups shared.

I restate this simply to balance the table of what constitutes a healthy diet.

Yes, as I already explained, I wasn't talking about extreme fruit-only diets and I still think that some Instinctos lean too heavily on fruits and don't have sufficiently diverse diets for their needs, I just don't discount the views of GCB and other Instinctos on tropical fruits and excess meat intake as much as I used to.

If your researchers quoted could in theory go to those earlier groups,  they would probably find additional balances of healthy bacteria. And my guess is that some form of RS existed in all their diets. To what extent RS played a role in 'others' diets, I don't know. I haven't thought much about  it.

It's too bad that they can't go to those earlier groups. So to some degree we are indeed left to guess about that. We can get some idea from dig-site evidence.

My point on the Tuber creating a bigger brain, I think you missed, was they've been around probably since people existed, and hence have probably been eaten for the same amount of time.  Thus why should those tubers all of a sudden create a bigger brain?  Especially with the introduction at some point of fire, hence cooking the tubers would result in lower levels of RS.

The reason why some like the tuber hypothesis is that our primate ancestors started eating tubers in quantity when they shifted from the trees to savannah, whereupon their brains grew, and as they consumed more tubers, their brains grew further. RS wasn't considered early on, because the scientists weren't aware of it. It turns out that if you cook AND COOL tubers overnight, you still end up with plenty of RS. If cooking causes you to eat more tubers, then you might even get more RS. Thus, it might not be cooking that's the factor, so much as RS, but it's a speculative hypothesis at this point.

So RS (and perhaps other prebiotics) is a possible factor. I'm not saying that it definitely is, I'm just sharing the various hypotheses.

Many of the same things can be said for meat/fat, which I've discussed extensively in the past, so I won't rehash that here.

I am still not convinced that food for the intestine has to be in the form of this seemingly narrowly defined description of RS.

It doesn't have to be just RS, and in nature it's never just RS that feeds gut bacteria. I don't know anyone who claims that commensal bacteria will only eat RS. That was never the point.

And maybe this is simply semantics, but I've written before that any undigested fibrous material making it to the large intestines feeds bacteria there.

And I explained before that it's not all about RS. Leach's findings are actually more about biodiversity of diet and microbiota. He has found that a diverse diet feeds a diverse microbiome, which is associated with health benefits.

Which means that everyone is feeding their guts all the time.

Not everyone is feeding their guts equally well.

You've pointed out the various gut feeding foods found in fresh animal parts.  I've mentioned the effects of seaweed ( which has probably been one of the most used  for of RS for all the peoples living around oceans ) .    What I'm waiting to see from 'Jeff' and others, should they find other societies that eat a completely unadulterated balanced diet from local sources complete with animal proteins, and no additional flour, sugar or cooking oils,,,, how their bacteria counts will compare, especially if they hadn't been treated with antibiotics through their lives.

Yeah, and like I said, I suggested the Chukchi to him.

Bottom line as to what I'm trying to say is,   My guess is that all natural diets contain enough beneficial food for healthy colon health.    And it's all the other stuff we consume that messes with it.

It's a testable hypothesis. Would people who call themselves "Paleo dieters" (mostly the cooked type, as with most of the groups Price studied) fit what you mean?

No they do not talk about the amounts the HGs ate of tubers. In that reports I  cited, they do indeed state , unequivocally, that tubers were the Hadza´s "LEAST PREFERRED FOODS" and that tubers were "FALLBACK FOODS", in other words, foods the fell back on when nothing else was available. That is , to put it mildly, somewhat indicative that I was correct!

Tyler, I already explained multiple times that the foods in the study were all STAPLE food types. They were all chosen for that reason, to give a representative sample of the Hadza diet, and that "LEAST PREFERRED" and "FALLBACK FOODS" DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN "MINIMALLY-CONSUMED." Like I said, if you don't believe me, you could go to the horse's mouth of one of the Hadza researchers, like Jeff Leach, like I did, but I doubt you will, because you've made clear that you're more interested in being correct than in learning the truth.
 

Whatever the case, diets high in plant food, containing tubers or otherwise, are not as healthy as ones with high proportions of raw meat in them.

That predetermined view explains many of your comments.

Unfortunately, Stone Age glacier hunters aren't alive today, so we can't directly study them or their microbiota.

[TylerDurden]

Tyler, I already explained multiple times that the foods in the study were all STAPLE food types. They were all chosen for that reason, to give a representative sample of the Hadza diet, and that "LEAST PREFERRED" and "FALLBACK FOODS" DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN "MINIMALLY-CONSUMED." Like I said, if you don't believe me, you could go to the horse's mouth of one of the Hadza researchers, like Jeff Leach, like I did, but I doubt you will, because you've made clear that you're more interested in being correct than in learning the truth.

I did not suggest that tubers were minimally consumed, merely that they were the least desired foods. I mean, if one is to take the Hadza`s dietary views as gospel, then, surely, one should heed the Hadza re their viewing tubers as being their least preferred food group and a food  which they only ate when other foods were not sufficiently available?

That predetermined view explains many of your comments.

Rubbish. I was referring to the much more frequent reports of  amazing health recovery on diets high in raw meat compared to diets high in raw plant foods. Anecdotal reports, maybe, but still valid.

[PaleoPhil]

I did not suggest that tubers were minimally consumed, merely that they were the least desired foods.

Least desired of five MAJOR food categories (you do know that the Hadza eat far more than just the studied sample foods, right?).

I mean, if one is to take the Hadza`s dietary views as gospel, then, surely, one should heed the Hadza re their viewing tubers as being their least preferred food group and a food  which they only ate when other foods were not sufficiently available? Rubbish. I was referring to the much more frequent reports of  amazing health recovery on diets high in raw meat compared to diets high in raw plant foods. Anecdotal reports, maybe, but still valid.

I don't take the Hadza's (or anyone else's) dietary views as gospel, but if you wish to, then if you assume that they “loathe” tubers (despite the evidence to the contrary) and eat them (which you don't appear to be disputing), then to be consistent you would do both—-loathe them AND EAT THEM.

Thought experiments aside, I’m not telling anyone to do anything, so feel free to do whatever you wish.

Just about every dietary approach has anecdotes to support and critique it with. Apparently you dismiss the reports of Iguana, GCB and his wife, GoodSamaritan, Brady, Miles and others who report faring well while eating plenty of plant foods, and with GCB, Brady, Miles and Löwenherz reporting ill effects from excessive meat consumption (IIRC)?

Löwenherz even started out as rabidly pro-LC. He ended up reporting seriously ill effects:

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/massive-health-problems-good-bye-raw-paleo!/msg110956/#msg110956

[van]

Lowenherz had some fairly offbeat dietary habits as I would read form his posts.  For example, I think he lived in europe and for some time just ate fish and coconuts.   I recall he would tend to lean towards the extremes.   Might be interesting to see what his diet was like in detail for the last six months before he gave up and got sick.    I think you'll find some sort of focused eating habits of those low carvers who have failed, and or, a history of failing diets and extremism leading up to low carb.   
     Too many times, and I bet you've seen this also,  one gets on the raw pale or zero kick, and it's about how big a steak they had for dinner, or how many steaks they had.  It can often look like this macho thing.   I know for myself, the first time I ate raw meat,  I couldn't stop.  My body needed it that badly.  Probably ate 2-3 pounds one night in Montrame.   But if one has the notion the more the better and continues eating that way,, Yes, excessive meat consumption is going to probe unhealthy for most.  Also many have a hard time to procure good tasty fats.  I understand that didn't help you, however much fat you ate on low carb.   But I never learned how to eat raw fat at Montrame.   In fact, as I've mentioned before in the five times I visited there, I only saw one woman eat a plate of fat (interesting I think she had cancer) and had been prescribed to eat fat (prescribed being contrary to the notion of instinctive).   
      What I think Tyler is indicating is that there are many 'dieters' who come to raw paleo from all sorts of meat limiting diets, diets that have been resplendent with all sorts of veggies and fruits, and have finally flourished with the addition of raw meat eaten often, but not in excess.  Seems to be about balance. 
    I know if I lived where GS lived I wouldn't be able to resist all those incredible sweet fruits.   And hence I wouldn't have had the opportunity of eating moderate protein and high amounts of fat, because I'd be shoveling fruit into my mouth all the while.   GS went through his period where he ate copious amounts of beef as I remember, but was sensitive enough to know when he had too much protein, and has cut back.    As to his practices of eating lots of fruit to gain weight and then lose it to cleanse his body as according to Adjonous,   we'll just have to see if that's productive, for him.    But my guess is for him after he's had some experience with the pendulum swinging both ways, and he probably already has,  that he, and most of us find the middle way.  Some include more carbs than others. 

[PaleoPhil]

Well said, Van. I agree that it seems to be about balance and the folks at the extremes seem to fare the worst in the longer run.