Author Topic: LCHF and healthy eating  (Read 150166 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11971
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1890 on: September 05, 2019, 02:03:18 PM »
Having read your screeds on diet and nutrition for literal years now, I'm quite familiar with your position. You've made it pretty clear in statements like these...

OK, these statements are fair representations. And I stand behind every one of them (mostly, see below).

My claim is that simple carbs are inherently bad

In anything but trace amounts, yes.

Sugar is not acutely toxic, it's chronically toxic. 

I may need to amend this. It can be acutely toxic as well, in sufficiently high amounts.

I would argue that the key to understanding nutrition is understanding the interplay between blood glucose; the insulin/glucagon response to blood glucose; the role of insulin in regulating energy partitioning.

Certainly.


My understanding is that eating a variety of meats provides all the micronutrients the body needs, and in many cases they are more readily bio-available than those in fruits and vegetables.

Yes.

Very little is known, really about diet.

In the context that comment was made, yes this is true. (This happens to be one of the items where the mainstream consensus is actually correct.)

We do know a lot about specific aspects of metabolism and nutrition, but looking at diet as a whole there are huge gaps in our knowledge, some in critical areas.

For example, no one knows what causes insulin resistance, and insulin resistance is one of the most potent risk factors for CVD and TIID.

Another example is the emerging field of the gut micro biome.  We know it can have numerous and significant effects on nutrition and metabolism, but we have barely scratched the surface on understanding it.

Quote
So it appears that your entire view of nutrition revolves around the following themes:

And now you're back to misrepresentations and exaggerations.
Quote
highly-educated medical professionals are largely ignorant about nutrition,

Yes, many are. And I have provided ample evidence that nutrition education in medical school is woefully inadequate.

But, no, this is not something that my view of nutrition revolves around. This is a secondary or tertiary aspect, simply answering the questions: why is the mainstream so slow in adapting the alternate theory; and why do doctors not recommend LCHF diets (some do; mine did. If he didn't we wouldn't be having this conversation).

Quote
but you know better because you can almost figure out the gist of some medical studies

No. The alternate theory is supported by numerous experts in the field. Your view that there is a monolithic mainstream support for the diet-heart-hypothesis (which is the basis for the dietary guidelines and the mainstream approach to diet and nutrition) is flat out false.



Quote
your beliefs about the effects of macronutrients on metabolism are the key to understanding nutrition

I have no idea what you're claiming here.

Most of my "beliefs" about the effects of macronutrients on metabolism are totally and entirely consistent with the mainstream positions. It's literally in the margins where the difference occurs. Along the lines of the effect of one extra bite of food per day.


Quote
carbohydrates are chronically toxic to the human body,

A total exaggeration and misrepresentation. I have never made that kind of broad sweeping statement.

Some carbohydrates, in the amounts consumed in the SAD (standard American Diet) are indeed chronically toxic. These include sugar (which the mainstream position now agrees) and fast simple carbs like refined flours.

Other carbohydrates are clearly not chronically toxic. These are complex carbs found in whole fruits and vegetables.

Some are borderline (whole grains).


Quote
therefore a LCHF diet is necessary to avoid consuming carbs which are a slow poison

Another exaggeration and misrepresentation. A LCHF Ketogenic diet is the most effective weight-loss diet for most people, as shown in numerous RCTs.

If you don't need to lose weight, you don't need a LCHF Ketogenic diet. There are numerous other diets that avoid or significantly limit fast simple carbs that are far healthier than the SAD.

The traditional mediterranean diet; the Paleo diet; the whole food diet; I even have a vegan friend who also avoids all refined sugar (which includes honey) and refined flours (he makes sure the whole grain products he consumes are not the typical highly refined grains with the fiber added back in, which are nearly as bad a refined flours).



Quote
And then there was the time you boldly asserted, sans evidence, that it's "unscientific" to say no single diet works best for everybody:

[...] Humans have adapted over millions of years to eat a varied diet and part of that is that we are good at metabolizing whatever food is available at the time.  So there is almost certainly no best diet.  I would guess that each individual needs to think about their personal genetics and lifestyle to come up with whatever works optimally for themselves.

That’s what I call the nutritional snowflake argument. That we’re all different and we each need to find the diet that works best for us.

Problem is that’s unscientific.

And I stand behind that as well. (Although on this particular point I will admit that this position an outlier both from the mainstream and the alternate hypothesis.)

If you had an issue with that argument you should have raised it at the time and I would have happily explained it.

Yes, I made the assertion without evidence, because the reason the claim is unscientific is because there is not enough evidence to support it. This is one of those areas where nutrition science is lacking. There may be a dietary approach that is indeed optimal for everyone (and it may not be the LCHF K approach) but there hasn't been enough study to rule in or rule out a universal dietary approach.

To say there is no best diet with almost certainty is unscientific.



Quote
And you've promoted the appeal to nature fallacy that's so popular with low-carb evangelists: the pseudoscientific myth that human beings specifically evolved to eat meat

What are the odds that the best diet for humans to eat is all meat, when we evolved to eat so many kinds of foods?

We evolved eating mostly meat, and it's likely that our ancestors evolved from carnivorous species.

Everywhere there is evidence of early man there is evidence of cooking and eating meat. And meat is pretty much the same everywhere, but plants are very different from region to region and climate to climate, and their availability is often seasonal.

Those arguments are valid. I'm not claiming they are true because it's natural. The claim is that we know that humans evolved eating mostly meat.

If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.


 
Quote
... and the advent of agriculture precipitated a sudden decline in overall human health:
Quote
Plus, it's clear that when we moved to an agricultural basis the overall health of humans declined. (although there were benefits, shifting to a diets with lots of grain and more plants diet did not make us healthier).

That is actually accepted in the mainstream. The best description of what happened is that while the overall health of humans declined, they were able to better survive harsh winters and periods of famine by having the steady of supply of nutrition. So while they're overall health declined somewhat, it agriculture helped these less healthy humans survive longer.

If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.



Quote
Given all that, I feel pretty confident in reducing your arguments down to something like, "LCHF diets are the optimal healthy diet for everybody."

Well that's just stupid. To get there you have to take numerous inductive and deductive leaps in reasoning and ignore the fact that any time anywhere anyone attributes that notion to me I correct them immediately.




Quote
And given the umpteen threads you've created and the other threads you've hijacked to advertise for your ketogenic diet, I suspect all our readers would agree that's a decent summary of your position.

You really shouldn't speak for anyone but yourself.

Quote
If you insist that's unfair, then please feel free to enlighten us as to how your actual beliefs may differ.


Did I leave anything out?
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2084
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1891 on: September 05, 2019, 04:34:32 PM »
CarbShark claims that we evolved eating meat, which is wrong.  We evolved as natural omnivores, eating a variety of food sources, both animal based and plant based.

We evolved to eat diets high in carbohydrates.  Like dogs, we evolved to have multiple copies of the gene for amylase, which breaks down starch (10 to 20 copies), and to produce it in saliva, which acts as a signal to seek out starchy food for its sweetness, which naturally is rare, but highly prized for its energy content:

https://elifesciences.org/articles/44628

Production of amylase in saliva and the multiple copies of the amylase gene occurred long before the agricultural revolution, and were a necessary precursor, not a result.

Humans, domestic dogs and house mice are very unusual mammals with regard to their amylase genes and expression.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with complex carbohydrates.  We evolved to handle them.  We didn’t evolve to handle simple sugars, such as sucrose, which only became a common nutrient in the past 500 years or so.  And we’ve only recently evolved to handle lactose as adults, and not in everyone.  Lactose only became a common nutrient nutrient for adults in the past few thousand years with the domestication of cattle, sheep, goats and horses.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2616
    • jt512
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1892 on: September 05, 2019, 04:37:35 PM »
I generally use single quotation marks, double quotation marks when there’s a quotation within a quotation (he said “she said ‘he did...’”)...

The American rule is to always use double quotation marks, except for embedded quotations, which are enclosed in single quotes.

Quote
...but I read somewhere that the American convention is different.  Single quotation marks are direct quotes, double quotation marks are paraphrases...

That's utterly wrong.  Google "quotation marks for paraphrase" (without the quotation marks!).  The first hit is to the MLA, based in New York, and says, "A quotation is a word-for-word repetition of written or spoken language. Quotation marks directly before and after the material tell the reader these are the exact words of the source ... Paraphrases and summaries do not use quotation marks."

The second hit is a UCLA webpage, which says, "When you paraphrase, you must entirely reword material taken from a source, without using quotation marks."

And the third hit is a Mesa (Arizona) Community College webpage that says, "In America, single quotes are only used to indicate internal quotes (or quotes within quotes)."

Enough said, I trust.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 05:54:05 PM by jt512 »
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11971
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1893 on: September 05, 2019, 04:44:16 PM »
CarbShark claims that we evolved eating meat, which is wrong.  We evolved as natural omnivores, eating a variety of food sources, both animal based and plant based.

If I'd said we evolved eating meat and only meat, that would have been wrong. But what I said was that we evolved eating meat, and that's correct.

In fact, everywhere we have found evidence of pre-agricultural humans and their close ancestors we have found evidence that they were meat eaters. But there is not always evidence they were eating plants.

Quote
We evolved to eat diets high in carbohydrates.  Like dogs, we evolved to have multiple copies of the gene for amylase, which breaks down starch (10 to 20 copies), and to produce it in saliva, which acts as a signal to seek out starchy food for its sweetness, which naturally is rare, but highly prized for its energy content:

https://elifesciences.org/articles/44628
Quote



Production of amylase in saliva and the multiple copies of the amylase gene occurred long before the agricultural revolution, and were a necessary precursor, not a result.

Humans, domestic dogs and house mice are very unusual mammals with regard to their amylase genes and expression.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with complex carbohydrates.  We evolved to handle them.  We didn’t evolve to handle simple sugars, such as sucrose, which only became a common nutrient in the past 500 years or so.  And we’ve only recently evolved to handle lactose as adults, and not in everyone.  Lactose only became a common nutrient nutrient for adults in the past few thousand years with the domestication of cattle, sheep, goats and horses.

Essentially you're discussing a very minor evolutionary change that occurred after the human adaptation of agriculture. If you carefully read the paper you link to you'd see the authors are claiming that the mammals that have adapted the ability to digest those starches did during the pre-historic agriculture period. We know that started about 12,000 years ago.

The bulk of human evolution occurred long before this one adaptation.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2084
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1894 on: September 05, 2019, 05:47:50 PM »
CarbShark claims that we evolved eating meat, which is wrong.  We evolved as natural omnivores, eating a variety of food sources, both animal based and plant based.

If I'd said we evolved eating meat and only meat, that would have been wrong. But what I said was that we evolved eating meat, and that's correct.

In fact, everywhere we have found evidence of pre-agricultural humans and their close ancestors we have found evidence that they were meat eaters. But there is not always evidence they were eating plants.

Quote
We evolved to eat diets high in carbohydrates.  Like dogs, we evolved to have multiple copies of the gene for amylase, which breaks down starch (10 to 20 copies), and to produce it in saliva, which acts as a signal to seek out starchy food for its sweetness, which naturally is rare, but highly prized for its energy content:

https://elifesciences.org/articles/44628
Quote



Production of amylase in saliva and the multiple copies of the amylase gene occurred long before the agricultural revolution, and were a necessary precursor, not a result.

Humans, domestic dogs and house mice are very unusual mammals with regard to their amylase genes and expression.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with complex carbohydrates.  We evolved to handle them.  We didn’t evolve to handle simple sugars, such as sucrose, which only became a common nutrient in the past 500 years or so.  And we’ve only recently evolved to handle lactose as adults, and not in everyone.  Lactose only became a common nutrient nutrient for adults in the past few thousand years with the domestication of cattle, sheep, goats and horses.

Essentially you're discussing a very minor evolutionary change that occurred after the human adaptation of agriculture. If you carefully read the paper you link to you'd see the authors are claiming that the mammals that have adapted the ability to digest those starches did during the pre-historic agriculture period. We know that started about 12,000 years ago.

The bulk of human evolution occurred long before this one adaptation.

No.  Salivary amylase and duplication of the amylase gene occurred before the agricultural revolution.  Both depended on the presence or absence of carbohydrates in the diet:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylase

Hunter-gatherer societies weren’t exclusively animal food based:

Australian Aborigines for example included a lot of plant based food containing starch:

https://australianarchaeologicalassociation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/AA-A_Tuechler_etal-CORRECT.pdf

Tragically, Australian Aborigines were perfectly capable of metabolising the ‘easy’ carbohydrates in flour after the European invasion of Australia, despite never having had the opportunity of the agricultural revolution because of Australia’s harsh and unpredictable climate.

In modern hunter-gatherer societies (which were pushed into marginal land by the much more successful agricultural societies), plant based foods with starches still formed a high proportion of the diet:

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/71/3/682/4729121

Modern or the historically recent hunter-gatherer societies aren’t the original hunter-gatherer societies that humans lived in for most of their evolutionary history.  You really can’t extrapolate the dietary habits of historically recent hunter-gatherer societies to the original ones, which were diverse and exposed to a whole range of different evolutionary pressures owing to climate.  And had a wide range of different diets.

Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2878
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1895 on: September 05, 2019, 07:00:08 PM »
If you carefully read the paper you link to you'd see the authors are claiming that the mammals that have adapted the ability to digest those starches did during the pre-historic agriculture period.
Where in the paper do they claim that?
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11971
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1896 on: September 05, 2019, 07:16:32 PM »
No.  Salivary amylase and duplication of the amylase gene occurred before the agricultural revolution.  Both depended on the presence or absence of carbohydrates in the diet:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylase

So, as is often the case, your own source disagrees with you:

Quote
   Human evolution   

Saccharides are a food source rich in energy. Following the agricultural revolution 12,000 years ago, human diet began to shift more to plant and animal domestication in place of gathering and hunting. Large polymers such as starch are partially hydrolyzed in the mouth by the enzyme amylase before being cleaved further into sugars. Therefore, humans that contained amylase in the saliva would benefit from increased ability to digest starch more efficiently and in higher quantities. Despite the obvious benefits, early humans did not possess salivary amylase, a trend that is also seen in evolutionary relatives of the human, such as chimpanzees and bonobos, who possess either one or no copies of the gene responsible for producing salivary amylase.[24] This gene, AMY1, originated in the pancreas. A duplication event of the AMY1 gene allowed it to evolve salivary specificity, leading to the production of amylase in the saliva. In addition the same event occurred independently in rodents, emphasizing the importance of salivary amylase in organisms that consume relatively large amounts of starch.[25]

However, not all humans possess the same number of copies of the AMY1 gene. Populations known to rely more on saccharides have a higher number of AMY1 copies than human populations that, by comparison, consume little starch. The number of AMY1 gene copies in humans can range from six copies in agricultural groups such as European-American and Japanese (two high starch populations) to only 2–3 copies in hunter-gatherer societies such as the Biaka, Datog, and Yakuts. T
Emphasis added


Quote
Hunter-gatherer societies weren’t exclusively animal food based:

No one is claiming they were.
 
Quote
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/71/3/682/4729121
Quote
Modern or the historically recent hunter-gatherer societies aren’t the original hunter-gatherer societies that humans lived in for most of their evolutionary history.  You really can’t extrapolate the dietary habits of historically recent hunter-gatherer societies to the original ones, which were diverse and exposed to a whole range of different evolutionary pressures owing to climate.  And had a wide range of different diets.


Wait, what? Then why are citing a paper that does just that?

From your own source:

Quote
Whenever and wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers would have consumed high amounts (45–65% of total energy) of animal food. Most (73%) hunter-gatherer societies worldwide derived >50% (≥56–65%) of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 13.5% of these societies derived more than half (≥56–65%) of their subsistence from gathered plant foods. In turn, this high reliance on animal-based foods coupled with the relatively low carbohydrate content of wild plant foods produces universally characteristic macronutrient consumption ratios in which protein intakes are greater at the expense of carbohydrate.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11971
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1897 on: September 05, 2019, 07:21:04 PM »
If you carefully read the paper you link to you'd see the authors are claiming that the mammals that have adapted the ability to digest those starches did during the pre-historic agriculture period.
Where in the paper do they claim that?

Quote
Diet has been a significant adaptive force in shaping human and nonhuman primate variation (Hardy et al., 2015; Milton, 1981; Zhang et al., 2002). One of the best-described examples of diet-related adaptation is the expansion of the copy number of the amylase gene in concordance with the increase of starch consumption in the human lineage (Perry et al., 2007), likely postdating the human Neanderthal split (Inchley et al., 2016). A gene duplication in the ancestor of Old World monkeys and great apes initially led to the formation of two amylase genes (AMY2A and AMY2B) with pancreas-specific expression (Samuelson et al., 1990). Then, a subsequent gene duplication in the ancestor of great apes led to the formation of AMY1 which gained salivary gland-specific expression (Meisler and Ting, 1993). In the human lineage, further gene copy number gains of AMY1 led to increased expression of the AMY1 enzyme in human saliva (Perry et al., 2007). Gene copy numbers of both AMY1 and AMY2 vary in different human populations (Carpenter et al., 2015; Usher et al., 2015), the former correlating with the extent of traditional starch consumption in these communities (Perry et al., 2007).

You have to read carefully. The increase in starch consumption occurred with the advent of agriculture.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2084
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1898 on: September 05, 2019, 07:28:12 PM »
If you carefully read the paper you link to you'd see the authors are claiming that the mammals that have adapted the ability to digest those starches did during the pre-historic agriculture period.
Where in the paper do they claim that?

CarbShark is conflating domestic dogs and (accidentally and incidentally) domestic house mice with all mammals capable with digesting starches.  Dogs for one were domesticated, or domesticated themselves, as grey wolves scavenging food refuse at the edge of human camps of hunter-gatherers thousands of years before the agricultural revolution, eating all sorts of food, including starch, and changing their food preferences.

My primary source, of course, is the technical paper dealing with salivary amylase and amylase gene number across different species.  CarbShark is quoting from the Wikipedia article, which isn’t always reliable.  They tend to tell a story which mightn’t be true.

I’ve been hunting around to see if I can find a source referring to salivary amylase and amylase gene number in Australian Aborigines, but I couldn’t find one.  Australian Aborigines never developed agriculture  (couldn’t, owing to the harsh climate), but still consumed considerable amounts of carbohydrate in their diets as part of their hunter-gatherer lifestyle.  And unfortunately they were perfectly capable of metabolising wheat flour, despite never being exposed to it before, so I suspect that they’d show high amylase expression.  I’ve never read anything to the opposite, claiming that Australian Aborigines are anomalies in not having salivary amylase, which is of benefit in detecting starch in food, an important source of calories.

One of the references for the Wikipedia article:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377015/

surmises the changes in the amylase gene occurred in Homo erectus, but at least within the last 200,000 years, since the evolution of Homo sapiens. 
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 08:02:46 PM by bachfiend »
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2878
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1899 on: September 05, 2019, 09:32:58 PM »
If you carefully read the paper you link to you'd see the authors are claiming that the mammals that have adapted the ability to digest those starches did during the pre-historic agriculture period.
Where in the paper do they claim that?

Quote
Diet has been a significant adaptive force in shaping human and nonhuman primate variation (Hardy et al., 2015; Milton, 1981; Zhang et al., 2002). One of the best-described examples of diet-related adaptation is the expansion of the copy number of the amylase gene in concordance with the increase of starch consumption in the human lineage (Perry et al., 2007), likely postdating the human Neanderthal split (Inchley et al., 2016). A gene duplication in the ancestor of Old World monkeys and great apes initially led to the formation of two amylase genes (AMY2A and AMY2B) with pancreas-specific expression (Samuelson et al., 1990). Then, a subsequent gene duplication in the ancestor of great apes led to the formation of AMY1 which gained salivary gland-specific expression (Meisler and Ting, 1993). In the human lineage, further gene copy number gains of AMY1 led to increased expression of the AMY1 enzyme in human saliva (Perry et al., 2007). Gene copy numbers of both AMY1 and AMY2 vary in different human populations (Carpenter et al., 2015; Usher et al., 2015), the former correlating with the extent of traditional starch consumption in these communities (Perry et al., 2007).

You have to read carefully. The increase in starch consumption occurred with the advent of agriculture.
Ah so you're begging the question.

Bachfiend's argument is that people were already eating starch and you're using that very claim to argue that it was after agriculture.

Meanwhile the part you quoted said "likely postdating" the split from Neanderthals, which happened long before 12k years ago. "Likely" means they're stating they're not certain, and the burden of proof is on you if you're arguing that both the split from Neanderthals and the advent of agriculture are within the same error bars.

You're also saying that early humans didn't possess salivary amylase but the paper shows that all the great apes have significant salivary amylase, so it's a pretty extraordinary claim to say that early humans were an exception to that.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2084
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1900 on: September 05, 2019, 09:54:25 PM »
If you carefully read the paper you link to you'd see the authors are claiming that the mammals that have adapted the ability to digest those starches did during the pre-historic agriculture period.
Where in the paper do they claim that?

Quote
Diet has been a significant adaptive force in shaping human and nonhuman primate variation (Hardy et al., 2015; Milton, 1981; Zhang et al., 2002). One of the best-described examples of diet-related adaptation is the expansion of the copy number of the amylase gene in concordance with the increase of starch consumption in the human lineage (Perry et al., 2007), likely postdating the human Neanderthal split (Inchley et al., 2016). A gene duplication in the ancestor of Old World monkeys and great apes initially led to the formation of two amylase genes (AMY2A and AMY2B) with pancreas-specific expression (Samuelson et al., 1990). Then, a subsequent gene duplication in the ancestor of great apes led to the formation of AMY1 which gained salivary gland-specific expression (Meisler and Ting, 1993). In the human lineage, further gene copy number gains of AMY1 led to increased expression of the AMY1 enzyme in human saliva (Perry et al., 2007). Gene copy numbers of both AMY1 and AMY2 vary in different human populations (Carpenter et al., 2015; Usher et al., 2015), the former correlating with the extent of traditional starch consumption in these communities (Perry et al., 2007).

You have to read carefully. The increase in starch consumption occurred with the advent of agriculture.
Ah so you're begging the question.

Bachfiend's argument is that people were already eating starch and you're using that very claim to argue that it was after agriculture.

Meanwhile the part you quoted said "likely postdating" the split from Neanderthals, which happened long before 12k years ago. "Likely" means they're stating they're not certain, and the burden of proof is on you if you're arguing that both the split from Neanderthals and the advent of agriculture are within the same error bars.

You're also saying that early humans didn't possess salivary amylase but the paper shows that all the great apes have significant salivary amylase, so it's a pretty extraordinary claim to say that early humans were an exception to that.

I suspect that CarbShark has a cartoon picture of human evolution, and imagines that all hunter-gatherer societies across the world in all climates were happily eating and thriving on animal based food, and then one morning 12,000 years ago a hunter-gatherer woke up, and decided it was a good idea to cultivate wheat.  And then in the afternoon, milled the grain into flour, and baked bread.

But of course, humans have always been eating carbohydrates and starches, ever since they moved out of the jungle (the domain of fruit and sugar) onto the savanna (the domain of grasses and starch).  And the agricultural revolution was a slow, not rapid process.  For example, humans had to wait for and observe the mutations in wheat that made agriculture possible, such as the inability of the wheat grains to detach spontaneously easily from the ear, making harvesting less laborious.

And before humans were milling flour and baking bread, they were chewing the wild wheat grain, using their salivary amylase, and enjoying the sweet taste (a prized taste in hunter-gatherer societies because sugars were so hard to get), and realising that wild wheat was a very good food source.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5004
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1901 on: September 07, 2019, 02:57:09 PM »
CS, you might like to hear this interview on NBT.  The interviewee is far more informed on the issue of heart disease than anyone on this forum, I would say.  Very informative and entertaining, to say the least.

https://nourishbalancethrive.com/podcasts/nourish-balance-thrive/statin-nation-damaging-millions-brave-new-post-hea/

"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2084
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1902 on: September 07, 2019, 06:08:14 PM »
CS, you might like to hear this interview on NBT.  The interviewee is far more informed on the issue of heart disease than anyone on this forum, I would say.  Very informative and entertaining, to say the least.

https://nourishbalancethrive.com/podcasts/nourish-balance-thrive/statin-nation-damaging-millions-brave-new-post-hea/

The Wikipedia article on atherosclerosis (the underlying pathological basis for coronary artery disease) is pretty good. 

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis

The important point it makes is that the cause of atherosclerosis, despite many decades of research, is unknown.  But there are many risk factors for atherosclerosis, including high blood cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, cigarette smoking, etc

Risk factors increase the chances of developing atherosclerosis.  But you can still develop atherosclerosis without any of the risk factors (and ageing is an unavoidable risk factor).

The hope with risk factors is that reducing one of the risk factors will reduce the chance of developing atherosclerosis.  Maybe, but by the time a person has symptoms, the atherosclerosis is already advanced, and unlikely to be reversed.

The important point is to reduce your risk factors from an early age.  Choose your parents carefully.  Don’t smoke.  Don’t become overweight.  Don’t develop diabetes.  Don’t be sedentary.  Etc, etc, etc - and you might avoid coronary artery disease.

Whether statins actually work is another matter, requiring studies showing whether survival is improved or not.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11971
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1903 on: September 07, 2019, 06:18:57 PM »
CS, you might like to hear this interview on NBT.  The interviewee is far more informed on the issue of heart disease than anyone on this forum, I would say.  Very informative and entertaining, to say the least.

https://nourishbalancethrive.com/podcasts/nourish-balance-thrive/statin-nation-damaging-millions-brave-new-post-hea/

The Wikipedia article on atherosclerosis (the underlying pathological basis for coronary artery disease) is pretty good. 

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis

The important point it makes is that the cause of atherosclerosis, despite many decades of research, is unknown.  But there are many risk factors for atherosclerosis, including high blood cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, cigarette smoking, etc


That’s not what it says. You just misrepresented your own source. Again.

But you’re right it’s not a bad article. If you had read it you’d have seen that dietary carbohydrates are listed as a possible risk factor. High cholesterol isn’t, but abnormal cholesterol levels are.

Too bad you didn’t read far enough in to see what it says about the dietary guidelines contributing to the problem.

Quote

The important point is to reduce your risk factors from an early age.  Choose your parents carefully.  Don’t smoke.  Don’t become overweight.  Don’t develop diabetes.  Don’t be sedentary.  Etc, etc, etc - and you might avoid coronary artery disease.

Whether statins actually work is another matter, requiring studies showing whether survival is improved or not.

No one is asking you for advice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2084
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1904 on: September 07, 2019, 06:35:21 PM »
CS, you might like to hear this interview on NBT.  The interviewee is far more informed on the issue of heart disease than anyone on this forum, I would say.  Very informative and entertaining, to say the least.

https://nourishbalancethrive.com/podcasts/nourish-balance-thrive/statin-nation-damaging-millions-brave-new-post-hea/

The Wikipedia article on atherosclerosis (the underlying pathological basis for coronary artery disease) is pretty good. 

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis

The important point it makes is that the cause of atherosclerosis, despite many decades of research, is unknown.  But there are many risk factors for atherosclerosis, including high blood cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, cigarette smoking, etc


That’s not what it says. You just misrepresented your own source. Again.

But you’re right it’s not a bad article. If you had read it you’d have seen that dietary carbohydrates are listed as a possible risk factor. High cholesterol isn’t, but abnormal cholesterol levels are.

Too bad you didn’t read far enough in to see what it says about the dietary guidelines contributing to the problem.

Quote

The important point is to reduce your risk factors from an early age.  Choose your parents carefully.  Don’t smoke.  Don’t become overweight.  Don’t develop diabetes.  Don’t be sedentary.  Etc, etc, etc - and you might avoid coronary artery disease.

Whether statins actually work is another matter, requiring studies showing whether survival is improved or not.

No one is asking you for advice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From the Wikipedia article, 2nd paragraph:

The exact cause is not known.  Risk factors include abnormal cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, obesity, family history, and an unhealthy diet.

I don’t dispute that a high carbohydrate diet is a risk factor.  The Lancet study showed a U-shaped curve of mortality, with increasing mortality with increased carbohydrate intake over 50% of calories, and sharply increased mortality with decreased carbohydrate intake.  I’ve never denied it (and have taken it to heart, slightly reducing my bread consumption partly because I’ve switched to spelt bread, which is expensive).

‘No one is asking you for advice.’  But you’re happy to give advice, again, and again, and again, repeatedly.

Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

 

personate-rain