Live data from Hacker News

“Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

salon.com

71–80 of 199 posts

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#71
post #66
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were obese it's because they had a caloric surplus (I doubt it). The laws of thermodynamics applied then, as they do now.

I thought it was rather obvious I was looking for justification as to why you thought cavemen didn't have the luxury of caloric surplus. You already made it clear that you more than doubt they they had that luxury, you definitively said they did not. Again, the question is why ?

I have no idea how cavemen lived, and it doesn't interest me all that much either, but my guess is that they weren't as sedentary and they weren't as proficient in the art of preserving food. Overall, it should have been quite difficult for most of them to create a caloric surplus, day after day.

What I do know is that bodymass is lost and gained with deficits and surpluses of calories.

Transient spikes in insulin and stuff like that are irrelevant. This is well established in nutritional science.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#72
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were obese it's because they had a caloric surplus (I doubt it). The laws of thermodynamics applied then, as they do now.

Your assumption about the laws of thermodynamics predicates that the "Energy out" part of the equation is not somehow effected by the type of "Energy in" (Adding wet sticks to a fire will not produce as much released energy as adding dry sticks or gasoline soaked sticks) The general argument about carbs or any food with high glycemic response is that these foods are like adding "wet sticks" to the fire. There's consi…

Taubes has been refuted so many times it's astonishing that anyone still cites him.

Compelling anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron, especially when the scientific evidence to the contrary is so strong.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#73
post #23
post #9

The biggest problem I have with Zuk is that the entire premise of this book is based on a straw man argument. The "Paleo" in paleo diet comes from the fact that there was a clear dip in human health once we entered the neolithic era (i.e. started farming). We are not emulating a caveman's diet per se, we are simply trying to find and remove what caused that original dip in health. To anyone uninformed about the paleo…

Indeed, it's a review by someone with an axe to grind about a book by someone with an axe to grind. I'm not a "Paleo" person, but the hinting in this article that folks trying to infer better living patterns from the past are loons is faintly preposterous. We have just mounds of evidence (which doubters are free to research themselves) that many pre-Agricultural societies had (and have, actually) far lower rates of t…

If you spend your day harvesting a field or running after animals to pray them, you're not going to be obese, you're more likely to gather fat if your day is taping on a computer, but this has nothing to do with diet. Also, I won't the lifestyle of a period of our history, as a species, where the expected longevity was something like 30 years against 80+ of today.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#74
post #53
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cavemen didn't have that luxury. Do we know that? I thought there was some research indicating the hunter-gatherer societies actually had to devote rather little (comparative) time to gathering sustenance.[1] Is there some research I should be aware of that refutes this, or at least asserts more information as to a likelihood one way or the other? [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

If they were obese it's because they had a caloric surplus (I doubt it). The laws of thermodynamics applied then, as they do now.

If the body digested everything with 100% efficiency and didn't produce waste, and also treated all 'calories' equally, then I'd agree that thermodynamics tells us everything we need to know.

But even people coming from the complete opposite end of the argument to the paleo crowd ("Eat more whole grains!") agree that the amount of heat produced by a substance when it's burnt in a calorimeter doesn't tell the full story about its potential for causing obesity.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#75
post #61
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. There's a pretty clear connection between insulin levels and weight gain. Spiking your insulin levels by eating carbohydrates will effect how calories are used for many if not all people.

I'm not denying that there certainly are such factors at play at some level, but not sure how decisive they are: I'd wager they won't make a dent if you consume 4500 calories of Paleo a day, and likewise won't if you consume 1200 calories of junk-food a day -- say for the average non-athlete rather-sedentary adult.

One of the primary arguments of a keto/paleo diet is that the different diets affect how many calories your body thinks it needs, how it uses them, and how it influences behavior as a result. (Disclaimer: using imaginary numbers below to illustrate the theory.)

Let's say your body typically wants 1000 calories at breakfast, and you eat 1000 calories with a heavy load of carbs. Carbohydrates with a high glycemic index cause your insulin to spike. That signals fat cells that they should start storing energy, and they do so, tucking away 300 of the 1000 calories you ate.

This means your body only gets to spend 700 of the 1000 calories you ate, and as such, it says "hey, I'm still hungry". You eat 300 calories worth of food. But your fat cells are still sucking up (X%) of what you eat into storage, due to the insulin reaction. So, your body gets 200 of those 300 it wants, and it stays a little bit hungry. (Or, more likely, your body wants 300, but you eat 500 to make it shut up.)

Carbs have the unfortunate habit of converting useful calories into fat storage prior to processing them for the purposes of nutrition. This means carb-heavy diets tend to cause unconscious overeating, and also constant feelings of hunger/cravings/etc.

One of the advantages of a paleo/keto diet is that they often avoid the type of carbohydrates that cause this problem, namely ones with a high glycemic index. This means when you eat 1000 calories, your fat cells don't skim any off the top before your metabolism gets to them, and you get the full 1000; this means you don't end up hungry after a meal, and don't suffer from the urge to snack/eat more. Because your body got all the energy it wanted, it doesn't start saying it's hungry again until it actually does need the nutrition, and you're more likely to eat closer to the correct amount for your body's needs.

The difference between the examples you give, 4500 of Paleo and 1200 of junk food, is primarily how they'd make your body react. 1200 of junk food would certainly be a caloric deficit, but you'd be ravenously hungry at that level. (I've done 1000 calories a day for 6 months straight - it's pretty awful for the first few months.) But with keto, you could eat 4500 calories in a day, but you won't want to. When I'm done eating a keto-style meal, I am completely uninterested in food until the next. Those meals, for me, are typically 1-2 small/medium brats with no bun. But if I go out and cheat, and grab a burger and fries, I've got to fight the urge to follow it up with some ice cream, even though the fries and burger combined are drastically more calories than the brats I was satisfied with the meal before.

It's really interesting stuff. The "calories-in, calories-out" model is completely right from a completely energy-based perspective, but it doesn't account for the side effects produced by the energy source, and how people react to them.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#76
post #46
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, it's a review by someone with an axe to grind about a book by someone with an axe to grind. I'm not a "Paleo" person, but the hinting in this article that folks trying to infer better living patterns from the past are loons is faintly preposterous. We have just mounds of evidence (which doubters are free to research themselves) that many pre-Agricultural societies had (and have, actually) far lower rates of t…

Diseases of civilization are a function of congregation, not eating grains. Obesity is the result of a caloric surplus. Cavemen didn't have that luxury.

> Obesity is the result of a caloric surplus. Cavemen didn't have that luxury.

No obese cavemen? How about a cavewoman?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#77
Now I have lost 12 kg for 2 months (114 to 102 on 180cm height) - from just cutting soda and anything with sugar, and limiting starches to minimum and eating unlimited amounts of raw nuts, eggs, meat, cheese, olives. I was obese and now my BMI scaled me into overweight.

There is no relation with the two arguments btw - "People adapt fast" - yeah but the ability to spike your blood sugar and insulin all day long into the stratosphere is recent, and because of the modern health system there is no evolutionary pressure. A guy with type 2 diabetes will have long life. Just crappy.

I think that every person could build a good diet for themselves following these rules:

1. Cut soda unless in the middle of a marathon or a brutal workout

2. Treat anything with added sugar as dessert and eat it in amounts suitable for dessert two times a week top.

3. Don't eat anything that has had its fibers removed.

4. Always start the meal with a big leafy salad.

5. Avoid overly processed meat products, products with too much salt and fats that have gone trough other processing than mechanical/thermal.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#78
I'm not a evolution scientist, so I would love to have some educated response to that :

Now that we are over 6 billion humans on earth, with migration way easier and common place than before, shouldn't on the contrary human evolution been speeded up ?

EDIT : I know evolution is not progressive but happen by sudden steps, but I suppose it still stands.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#79
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were obese it's because they had a caloric surplus (I doubt it). The laws of thermodynamics applied then, as they do now.

If the body digested everything with 100% efficiency and didn't produce waste, and also treated all 'calories' equally, then I'd agree that thermodynamics tells us everything we need to know. But even people coming from the complete opposite end of the argument to the paleo crowd ("Eat more whole grains!") agree that the amount of heat produced by a substance when it's burnt in a calorimeter doesn't tell the full sto…

Yes, fans of either reductionist fad diet of the day are all ignorant.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#80

I'm not a evolution scientist, so I would love to have some educated response to that : Now that we are over 6 billion humans on earth, with migration way easier and common place than before, shouldn't on the contrary human evolution been speeded up ? EDIT : I know evolution is not progressive but happen by sudden steps, but I suppose it still stands.

> Now that we are over 6 billion humans on earth, with migration way easier and common place than before, shouldn't on the contrary human evolution been speeded up ?

Evolution speeds up as a result of either an increased natural mutation rate or extreme environmental challenges (lots of death produced by unfitness) -- or both. But we're not seeing either in modern times.

> EDIT : I know evolution is not progressive but happen by sudden steps ...

No, this isn't true as a rule. In evolutionary theory, the overall rate of change,and the presence or absence of abrupt changes, is entirely dependent on what produces greater fitness. In other words, the rate at which evolution happens, and the shape of the change curve, are themselves driven by considerations of fitness and natural selection.

Post reply on HN