escott

Neanderthal Diet/Human Protein Max

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Didn't they survive?  None of the early hominids survived in that sense I guess.  I wish I could find the article to link to but I don't recall where I saw it.

 

This is a different one:

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22494-our-ancestors-dined-on-grass-3-5-million-years-ago/

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about -- creative fantasies passed off for life sciences -- and they don't even bother to look at the fantasies of other sciences and get their shit together in terms of some uniformity of the plot.  According to those other sciences, "early hominins, living 3 to 3.5 million years ago, " who according to the article you linked "got over half their nutrition from grasses, unlike their predecessors, who preferred fruit and insects," grasslands did not exist at the time.

 

Grasslands, that other sciences' narrative goes, came to replace forests later, with the advance of the ice sheets on the African continent beginning 2.8 million years ago.  Which made the climate colder and drier.  Although this doesn't make sense either because generally forests withstand colder and drier climates much better than grasses do -- have they ever been to a fracking forest in winter in their lives?..   Have they ever had to water an herb garden?  only to kill it if you skip three days in drought conditions?.. while the cedar nearby asks for it, like, never?..

 

And if we were so enamored with insects, who the hell hunted the mammoth then?..  Oh..  right.  "Someone" may or may not have been eating insects.  But the wooly mammoth is wooly because it needs a winter coat.  I haven't heard of many wooly insects of winter which we could have preferred but chose to go to all that trouble instead of hunting, in cooperating groups, the largest, meatiest, fattest, and hardest-to-get animal in the environment.  Weird, huh?  and those people, humans, sapiences who made this dietary choice -- they, indeed, were us.  They, indeed, are the ones who matter when we talk about "what humans are fit to eat."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/08/2019 at 10:27 PM, Taomeow said:

 

Yes.  (In terms of cuts, boneless short ribs appear to be the champion.  I also cook with butter, ghee or lard.)  Of course the cleaner the source of meat, the better, and grass-fed is best (though there's no clarity what exactly is allowed to term "grass fed" commercially...  but I don't want to look too closely into everything food regulations related or I'll wind up anorexic.)  But overall, we're primarily designed as fat-for-energy burning machines -- slow and steady.  Getting energy from the stored glucogen is an additional,  emergency mechanism we have in our design, specifically for situations when a short-term burst of high energy that's needed immediately, not slow and steady, is the imperative of the moment (e.g. to run away from a predator or to catch up with the running-away prey).   Switching the whole species, courtesy of grain and other starches agriculture, to using this emergency back-up system as the primary system instead is the starchy root of many long term bodily ills, mental too far as I've been able to discern.  And the recent push into "low fat" diets didn't make things better.  And those fats that are still touted as permissible or even "good fats" being unsaturated (an invitation to peroxidative chaos in the body instead of the stable, oxidation-resistant fuel saturated fats are) doesn't help.

 

 

 

Thank you for sharing this. I've read a lot about this too and came to similar conclusions. There is some research that suggest that between 50-65+ it is wise to lower protein consumption to drive IGF-1 levels lower to lower risk of overall mortality. One study suggested increased mortality rate up to 75% and a 4-fold increased risk of cancer death risk during the following 18 years. Instead, one would then increase protein and fat consumption after 65+ years of age to drive the IGF-1 levels higher and thus avoid sarcopenia,  cancer and overall mortality.

 

I suppose one major confounder with these studies is that they're not done in specifically ketogenic or fat-adapted paleo-type diets, but instead simply high protein, high fat and medium carbohydrate, which as you say, would lead to high glucose levels. 


It is something I am going to be writing my dissertation on this year -- whether GH/IGF-1 has protective or deleterious effects in terms of longevity in an aging population (65+). My preliminary thoughts are that there's a trade-off between performance and longevity. There was a recent study done on metformin, GH and DHEA which showed regeneration of the thymus in 9 individuals (no control group) that was rather interesting as it showed signs of reversed aging based on protective immunological changes, reduced risk for age-related diseases and reduction of mean epigenetic age. 

 

What do you think about this conundrum? I would love to hear your thoughts. :) 

 

high vs low protein.jpg

Edited by anshino23
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Taomeow

 

Do you recommend eating rice, maize, rye, oats, or potato? 

 

What about herbs like basil or coriander?

 

What about flavourful things, like onion, chilli and garlic?

 

What about olive oil, or sesame oil when cooking chinese food?

 

What about honey? That comes from an animal.

 

Sorry for all the questions. Thank you

Edited by Phoenix3
Additional question
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2019 at 11:08 AM, anshino23 said:

 

Thank you for sharing this. I've read a lot about this too and came to similar conclusions. There is some research that suggest that between 50-65+ it is wise to lower protein consumption to drive IGF-1 levels lower to lower risk of overall mortality. One study suggested increased mortality rate up to 75% and a 4-fold increased risk of cancer death risk during the following 18 years. Instead, one would then increase protein and fat consumption after 65+ years of age to drive the IGF-1 levels higher and thus avoid sarcopenia,  cancer and overall mortality.

 

I suppose one major confounder with these studies is that they're not done in specifically ketogenic or fat-adapted paleo-type diets, but instead simply high protein, high fat and medium carbohydrate, which as you say, would lead to high glucose levels. 


It is something I am going to be writing my dissertation on this year -- whether GH/IGF-1 has protective or deleterious effects in terms of longevity in an aging population (65+). My preliminary thoughts are that there's a trade-off between performance and longevity. There was a recent study done on metformin, GH and DHEA which showed regeneration of the thymus in 9 individuals (no control group) that was rather interesting as it showed signs of reversed aging based on protective immunological changes, reduced risk for age-related diseases and reduction of mean epigenetic age. 

 

What do you think about this conundrum? I would love to hear your thoughts. :) 

 

high vs low protein.jpg

 

 

Hi Anshino, thanks for your thoughts (and for your interest in mine!) :)

 

I do think your second paragraph nails it.  A lot of foods commonly designated as "beneficial" are beneficial only in that they offset (to an extent) the detrimental effects of eating a lot of "those other" foods.  Some vitamins we are told are "essential," i.e. we purportedly need to get them from our food, cease being essential on keto/zerocarb -- notably vitamin C.  In carb eaters, it is a huge player in carbs metabolism and its role is similar to that of insulin.  Traditional meat/fat/dairy eaters (from nomadic Mongols to Innuits to Masai) don't get it in their diet and don't get scurvy or any type of "deficiency."  This is true of many other "good nutrients" which are only good due to giving a helping metabolic hand to carb eaters.  Looks like only humans who are carb eaters turn into obligatory omnivores -- i.e. there's no one food they can survive on, no grain, legume, vegetable or fruit -- while meat/fat eaters don't.  They can, and historically did, thrive on a monodiet of fatty meat for hundreds of thousands of years.  Native Americans had a term for the conditions when that became scarce and they had to resort to eating lean meats (e.g. rabbit) instead: "rabbit starvation." 

 

"Longevity" and "performance" are indeed, in the majority of cases, outcomes competing against each other.  Perhaps with some rare exceptions where "performance" is to be credited to a stellar genetic lottery win rather than strenuous effort.  But we would probably have to define "performance" and determine the parameters.  Record setters, competition winners, performance-for-hire folks are not known for their longevity as a group.  The traditional taoist view, incidentally, favors conserving subtle energies (jing, qi, shen) rather than squandering them toward performance.  This conservation does not mean "doing nothing" of course -- but, rather, avoiding excessive exertion.  "The sage has spirit but does not make it labor."   So, again, it's hard to tell how HG and other growth-promoting factors would affect someone in the state of healthy homeostasis.  Growth is energy- and resources-consuming.  Unnecessary growth may be consuming necessary energy and necessary resources, taking them away from a simpler yet loftier goal.

 

And the illustration with mice is simply sad.  What can be learned from abusing an animal who never eats a high protein diet in nature by feeding it abnormal amounts of what it wouldn't normally eat?  Of course it will get sick.  This whole "animal studies" "culture" is animal sacrifice (they do use this word in scientific papers to this day) on an unprecedented scale and I find it profoundly disturbing for many reasons which I will omit here.  

 

Best of luck with your dissertation.   

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phoenix3 said:

@Taomeow

 

Do you recommend eating rice, maize, rye, oats, or potato? 

 

What about herbs like basil or coriander?

 

What about flavourful things, like onion, chilli and garlic?

 

What about olive oil, or sesame oil when cooking chinese food?

 

What about honey? That comes from an animal.

 

Sorry for all the questions. Thank you

 

 

It all depends on what your overall plan is.  If it's "whatever," everything goes.  If it's "avoiding grains," only potato stays on your first line.  If it's "avoiding starches," potato too has to go.  If it's merely "gluten free," rice and potato stay, everything else goes (maize may be in a grey zone -- it doesn't technically have gluten but it triggers similar immune responses due to the close similarity of some of its proteins, which the immune system reacts to with antibodies the same way as to gluten in some, though not all, people.)   

 

Herbs should be OK, onions and so on, I'd say OK for most people under most circumstances.  

 

Olive oil, sesame oil -- for high temp cooking it's not ideal.  Traditionally, both were consumed as seasoning on food, not as frying oils. 

 

Honey -- depends on what you're trying to accomplish.  It has something worse than the notorious "glycemic index" -- glycation rate (eagerness to form protein-sugar compounds that are at the core of a lot of degenerative disease as well as accelerated aging) 50 times that of sugar.  So, I wouldn't use it as a "food," perhaps only as seasoning in small amounts, or as medicine (it shines in some medicinal applications, notably external, and also helps if you have a cold or flu).  That it comes from an animal doesn't make it an animal.  For that you would have to eat bees, not their own processed food derived from flowers. :D        

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did chinese people traditionally cook their food in a wok without oil? I don’t think they used ghee.

 

Personally I feel fine when I eat grains and gluten, so I don’t know if I’m allergic. I don’t know what the best option is (no starches, or no carbs, or no gluten, or no grains).

 

Thank you for your help

Edited by Phoenix3
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Phoenix3 said:

How did chinese people traditionally cook their food in a wok without oil? I don’t think they used ghee.

 

Of course not, besides ghee doesn't work for stir-frying, it gets stuff to stick to the wok.  They used lard.  Still do wherever dietary habits haven't been completely changed by modern industries.  Traditionally industries producing plant oils did not exist.  Sesame oil was very expensive -- at one point it was reserved for the emperor's kitchen.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites