Although I follow a ketogenic diet and benefit from it I have laughed about the claims that it's somehow aligned with the needs of Paleolithic people. SO I really enjoyed this: "Unlike Neanderthals and Denisovans, who had only two diploid copies, we carry up to 20 copies of the AMY1 gene, which produces salivary amylase. "
Is it too much of a reach to make a claim that due to our high starch diet compared to other hominid species our brains developed at a faster rate due to our brains consuming a higher yield of the energy stored in polysaccharides.
Therefore isn’t it imperative for a majority of paleo and keto oriented diet people to consume complex polysaccharides for their brains to perform optimally? *with the exception of people who must follow it for serious health reasons
Isn't that the opposite of what you believe? Paleolithic people were not genetically adapted to high-starch diets like we are. Ergo, a low-carb diet like keto was more natural for them.
> This may suggest that our lineage has evolved specific adaptations to digest starch-rich foods, underlining the long and continuing importance of these staples in our diet
This reminds me of the interest in keto dieting and the frustrating misunderstanding that carbs are the cause of excess weight, diabetes etc. If that were true, the whole world would be diabetic and obese, since everywhere has a staple carb. It's only with excess calories and fat that carbs contribute to, but are not the cause of, the problem.
There are a few populations without (much) staple carbs, for example the Inuit and the Maasai. But I don't think many people solely blame carbs. It's processed carbs and sugar, hyper-palatable foods, lack of sleep, lack of sun exposure, microbiome damage from antibiotics, and a ton of other lifestyle factors.
But once you're in a compromised state (autoimmune, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, etc.), the ketogenic diet can be a very good way to treat or reverse those conditions. It doesn't mean that no one can eat carbs, it just means there are a lot of people who really do benefit from it.
Until recently, everyone has lived near the border of starvation, and not had an opportunity to get obese.
Since the agricultural revolution, carbs are what we have been able to mass produce, and therefore breed ourselves to greater numbers on. That it probably hasn't been the ideal diet for us is a distant secondary concern.
Now that we're finally overproducing food, we actually are getting obese on the carb diet. Coincidence? Maybe.
As societies get richer and more sedentary they do get more diabetic and obese though. That’s not really due to carbs existing of course - but as we get easier access to luxury ultra rich foods it causes a lot of problems.
The number of carbs your body can tolerate without being converted and stored as fat is highly variable and may come down to specific genetic factors that are largely inherited from one's racial makeup. There's no doubt that carbs and sugars make a higher percentage of our diets than historical, traditional diets.
The argument for keto/carnivorous diet does not depend on human adaptation to digesting starches. I understood it as:
* Evolution works at the level of genes, not individuals. It will select for short-term reproductive success at the expense of longevity or quality of life.
* All living things evolve to avoid being eaten (at least while they have the potential to reproduce or aid the reproduction of their kin).
* Animals primarily defend against being eaten by fleeing or fighting. These defenses can be 100% neutralized by killing the animal.
* Plants primarily defend against being eaten by producing toxins. These defenses can be neutralized by metabolism, but evolution has no incentive to select for 100% neutralization. If 100% neutralization of plant toxins is difficult then dying young with a lot of children might be a better strategy.
However, there are plants that defend with spines/shells/hiding underground, and plants that produce fruit to attract animals for seed distribution, all of which change the selection pressure for toxin production, and any food may be healthful or harmful purely as a spandrel (a byproduct of evolution of some other characteristic). There are examples of human populations maintaining good health on a wide variety of different diets, so as is usually the case with nutrition, there are no clear answers.
These arguments are all interesting but I think most relevant is that the best nutrition science we have to date shows that a proper plant based diet is optimal for health & longevity. The plants and animals we eat now are radically different than the ones we were exposed to through most of our evolution so paleo proponents are chasing a lost world.
Hmm I wonder if it is just an adaptation (humans mean their staples are about and it gets selected for) - or if it is something mutagenic. The fact it is the same enzyme makes me wonder.
Good quality dog food is closer to deer leg then to pizza. Unfortunately there are too much low quality made of unbelievable junk pet food around compare to which even pizza sounds good and healthy. That prompts a lot health problems to the dogs.
[+] [-] gumby|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] julius_set|6 years ago|reply
Therefore isn’t it imperative for a majority of paleo and keto oriented diet people to consume complex polysaccharides for their brains to perform optimally? *with the exception of people who must follow it for serious health reasons
[+] [-] Noumenon72|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spraak|6 years ago|reply
This reminds me of the interest in keto dieting and the frustrating misunderstanding that carbs are the cause of excess weight, diabetes etc. If that were true, the whole world would be diabetic and obese, since everywhere has a staple carb. It's only with excess calories and fat that carbs contribute to, but are not the cause of, the problem.
[+] [-] rhinoceraptor|6 years ago|reply
But once you're in a compromised state (autoimmune, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, etc.), the ketogenic diet can be a very good way to treat or reverse those conditions. It doesn't mean that no one can eat carbs, it just means there are a lot of people who really do benefit from it.
[+] [-] BurningFrog|6 years ago|reply
Since the agricultural revolution, carbs are what we have been able to mass produce, and therefore breed ourselves to greater numbers on. That it probably hasn't been the ideal diet for us is a distant secondary concern.
Now that we're finally overproducing food, we actually are getting obese on the carb diet. Coincidence? Maybe.
[+] [-] dilap|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taurath|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisco255|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kccqzy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cheesymuffin|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrob|6 years ago|reply
* Evolution works at the level of genes, not individuals. It will select for short-term reproductive success at the expense of longevity or quality of life.
* All living things evolve to avoid being eaten (at least while they have the potential to reproduce or aid the reproduction of their kin).
* Animals primarily defend against being eaten by fleeing or fighting. These defenses can be 100% neutralized by killing the animal.
* Plants primarily defend against being eaten by producing toxins. These defenses can be neutralized by metabolism, but evolution has no incentive to select for 100% neutralization. If 100% neutralization of plant toxins is difficult then dying young with a lot of children might be a better strategy.
However, there are plants that defend with spines/shells/hiding underground, and plants that produce fruit to attract animals for seed distribution, all of which change the selection pressure for toxin production, and any food may be healthful or harmful purely as a spandrel (a byproduct of evolution of some other characteristic). There are examples of human populations maintaining good health on a wide variety of different diets, so as is usually the case with nutrition, there are no clear answers.
[+] [-] cageface|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nasrudith|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jp57|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trhway|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tosca|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]