High carbs or low carbs?

[Tauren]

Quote

I struggle to see this as a valid argument. Many hunter gatherer tribes utilise tubers, the kiteveans (sp?) survived off sweet potatoes, rice is considered the lifeblood of vast swaths of asia - even before the agarian revolution. We can adapt and survive on many different macro make-ups as the inuit to the japanese show, so what's to say we haven't adapted to a slightly higher carb intake? We're taller than the victorians all of 200yrs ago, so I'd say 10,000yrs is a fair amount of time to adapt.

As can be seen by how quickly European populations adapted to be able to metabolise alcohol, as it presented a disease-free way of obtaining fluids. Compared to how rapidly that happened, 10,000 years to adapt to grains is an eternity. A point that has been made by a number of academic papers criticising paleo.

There is also the fact that paleo foods either don't exist now (anyone's Tesco stock Mastodon steaks?), and more importantly no one is exactly sure what they were anyway. Tubers, fruits and any other paleo carb souces wouldn't have left a fossil record in the same way animal bones would.

I have have said in the other thread, I actually like the idea of paleo, it just seems a bit of a mess in practice.

[James]

I think one needs to be intelligent enough to realise what is paleo by today's standards. Be a modern day paleo-avocate. For instance, go for brown or wholemeal over bleached varieties etc. etc.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Quote

For instance, go for brown or wholemeal over bleached varieties etc. etc.

That would be 'neolithic' rather than 'paleo'!

Quote

I think one needs to be intelligent enough to realise what is paleo by today's standards. Be a modern day paleo-avocate.

But I agree with your basic point - you take what data there is on the food choices available to palaeolithic man and extrapolate that to what is available to us today. Wall paintings show large deer, bison, types of cattle etc. It is not to hard to pick the equivalent available today - either wild or domesticated.

[Tauren]

Quote

I think one needs to be intelligent enough to realise what is paleo by today's standards. Be a modern day paleo-avocate. For instance, go for brown or wholemeal over bleached varieties etc. etc.

Somewhere like Mark's Daily Apple I think pretty much everyone would agree gets it more right than wrong, and is particularly good on food choices and wholefoods, the importance of resistance training for general health and not flogging yourself to death with cardio. I'd bet even the people on here who are in favour of moderate carb consumption aren't doing things massively differently to Mark Sisson's approach.

Of course whilst everyone might agree MDA gets it more right than wrong, not everyone would agree which bits he gets wrong! All the pages upon pages upon pages of arguments we get here basically come because there are those who don't see whats wrong with more carbs around training, and eating a few potatoes and even some grains, to those serious paleo's at the other end of the spectrum who think MDA is too moderate in allowing foods such as dairy.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Quote

As can be seen by how quickly European populations adapted to be able to metabolise alcohol, as it presented a disease-free way of obtaining fluids. Compared to how rapidly that happened, 10,000 years to adapt to grains is an eternity. A point that has been made by a number of academic papers criticising paleo.

Unfortunately, this is not a viable argument. Human beings always have a small concentration of endogenous alcohol in their systems (usually provided by the fermentation activities of gut bacteria) so it is likely we evolved the mechanisms to metabolise it a lot earlier than you are implying.

[Wotan]

Quote

I struggle to see this as a valid argument. Many hunter gatherer tribes utilise tubers, the kiteveans (sp?) survived off sweet potatoes, rice is considered the lifeblood of vast swaths of asia - even before the agarian revolution. We can adapt and survive on many different macro make-ups as the inuit to the japanese show, so what's to say we haven't adapted to a slightly higher carb intake? We're taller than the victorians all of 200yrs ago, so I'd say 10,000yrs is a fair amount of time to adapt.

10,000 years ago Northern Europe was under a blanket of ice a mile deep. There was no agriculture. Full stop.

The neolithic agricultural revolution (which is what you are talking about) is considered to have started in eight seperate locations and at eight seperate times. The earliest, full-blown, transition between the two states occured at about 3,500 BC. The figure you give of 10,000 BC is only the time when the first signs of plant/animal domestication became apparant.

The 18th century agricultural revolution (which is what I was talking about) started with, and was carried along by, just a few notable inventions. The culmination of the agricultural revolution is what kick-started the industrial revolution. (More food, bigger populations, less work in the fields etc).

The "high carb-alisation" of the British population came about because cereals could be grown in much bigger quantities and transported (via canals, then rail and then road) to all parts of the country.

Prior to industrial style methods of production, storage and transport there was simply not the capability for this.

You can argue all you want but the fact is our diets were different 200 years ago.

You then talk about genetic adaptation. The point that you have failed to grasp is that if this were true (and I do not believe it) then the ratio of carb-adapted persons would have to outnumber the non-carb adapted persons in order that a genetic drift in the whole population take place. If this were the case; and again I do not believe it, then it could have only happened after these two social revolutions ... because that's when the population increased exponentially in the favour of the "high-carbers". You have proved my point with your own observations.

[Wotan]

Before this thread gets railroaded off further high carb/low carb debate can anyone thinking of continuing the agriculture/archeology debate please note that the proper place for it is here:-

How carbs and insulin make you fat and/or ill!

There are plenty of posts there to quote from and continue the debate with.

Alternatively, of course, you can always start your own thread specific to that topic.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Please feel free to move the offending posts to that thread - I do not mind!

[Wotan]

Thanks Nu - all existing posts can stay where they are; that's only fair. Any new ones though might be deleted or moved over to your thread. I'll put a post in your thread immediately above any moved posts so as to avoid confusion. Thanks again.

[Elvis]

I'm picky about the fat I consume, so I'd say I'm biased towards carbs (and pretty high protein), brown bread, rice and veg provide most of my carbs (I avoid sugar, but do consume some alcohol). I get my fats mostly from fish and a bit of dairy. I don't particularly count carbs/fat, but I do keep an eye on overall calories.

If I see good science on fat vs carbs I guess I might take more of a view.