For any who still think LCHF is a fad ...

[douglas99]

In the meantime, @douglas99, could we have a source for 'most adults died in their mid 40's, if they weren't violently killed before, in war or accident' please?

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

http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/241864.stm

They all have similar figures, so they're either all right, or all wrong.

If you have a different opinion, we'll be interested if you'd like to share?

 

[donnellysdogs]

Only humans are clever enough to have grown grain... And stupid enough to eat it!!??

 

[douglas99]

Only humans are clever enough to grown grain... And stupid enough to eat it!!??

It will be interesting to see the links, as to when it was first eaten.

 

[equipoise]

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

http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/241864.stm

They all have similar figures, so they're either all right, or all wrong.

If you have a different opinion, we'll be interested if you'd like to share?

These count as historical sources???? TV websites?? Sarah Woodbury on Welsh royals??
Wikipedia at least has citations, if only to television programmes, but that says for medieval period 'At age 21, life expectancy was an additional 43 years (total age 64). How does that count as 'mid 40s'???'.[

 

[douglas99]

These count as historical sources???? TV websites?? Sarah Woodbury on Welsh royals??
Wikipedia at least has citations, if only to television programmes, but that says for medieval period 'At age 21, life expectancy was an additional 43 years (total age 64). How does that count as 'mid 40s'???'.[

Like I said, I await, and indeed welcome your contradictory historical evidence, to prove all others wrong.
Please provide it, and you can indeed prove all other sources incorrect.

And if you are quoting wiki, I'll quote it in full, and leave the words 'English aristocracy' in, which is probably important concerning the average diet, wouldn't you agree?

'Having survived until the age of 21, a male member of the English aristocracy in this period could expect to live:

• 1200–1300: to age 64'

 

[donnellysdogs]

It is amazing though that since 1918 when vitamins in veg was measured to nowadays that the vitamins have reduced dramatically. There was a programme on about it recently. I was staggered. So if this is the case, what are humans doing to the whole goodness of natural foods? Whether low carb or not? I'm so glad I grow so much of my own.

Last week I saw a field of effectively mud being sprayed with the most luminous green spray I have ever seen.. Definately not natural!!

 

[equipoise]

Like I said, I await, and indeed welcome your contradictory historical evidence, to prove all others wrong.
Please provide it, and you can indeed prove all other sources incorrect.

What do you mean 'contradictory historical evidence'?? You have presented no evidence to begin with. One of the sources that you quote says something completely different to what you said, as I have just quoted, and you have ignored it. You are mixing up life expectancy at birth and life expectancy after 21 -- I suggest you quietly admit it and we can move on.

 

[douglas99]

What do you mean 'contradictory historical evidence'?? You have presented no evidence to begin with. One of the sources that you quote says something completely different to what you said, as I have just quoted, and you have ignored it. You are mixing up life expectancy at birth and life expectancy after 21 -- I suggest you quietly admit it and we can move on.

I don't believe your mis quote is strictly allowable. As I said, 'English aristocracy' which you seem to be keen on ignoring, probably doesn't reflect the entire population.
I await your proof.
If you have nothing, there is little point discussing it much further with you.

 

[douglas99]

It is amazing though that since 1918 when vitamins in veg was measured to nowadays that the vitamins have reduced dramatically. There was a programme on about it recently. I was staggered. So if this is the case, what are humans doing to the whole goodness of natural foods? Whether low carb or not? I'm so glad I grow so much of my own.

Last week I saw a field of effectively mud being sprayed with the most luminous green spray I have ever seen.. Definately not natural!!

I think it went more wrong feeding animal remnants to cows.

 

[equipoise]

I don't believe your mis quote is strictly allowable. As I said, 'English aristocracy' which you seem to be keen on ignoring, probably doesn't reflect the entire population.
I await your proof.
If you have nothing, there is little point discussing it much further with you.

Thankyou, @douglas99, you have made my point for me. You don't understand evidence, you don't understand logic, you can't argue. This is about historical demography, about which you know and understand precisely nothing, but the same failings in evidence and logic underlie what you say about diabetes, which is why people don't take you seriously. And which is why I'm not going to waste my time on this any longer.

 

[douglas99]

So, no proof, no valid argument, no admission you entirely mis-read the wiki article, didn't realise it referred to one specific privileged group, and just won't admit you jumped in feet first, and were completely wrong?
Fair enough.
Rhetoric without proof or reason.

Hmm.

 

[Brunneria]

@modesty007
I would be interested to see the links for that, and what period it states humans started eating grains, and what evidence they're giving for that conclusion.

It was with the advent of farming, circa 10,000 years ago.
The evidence is skeletal and dental, from archaeological digs.
Average height declined, musculature altered, teeth showed more decay, and the jawbone narrowed, if I remember correctly.
There was also increased skeletal degeneration due to age (arthritis, and similar).

I'll have a look for refs.
Ah, here we are:

http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n12/full/1601646a.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesolithic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic
Apologies for using Wikipedia.
I wouldn't usually, but the articles do give a great overview, and (except for the Neolithic article above), they are well referenced.

For better detail on the Neolithic diet, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution
in particular, this paragraph
'It has long been taken for granted that the introduction of agriculture had been an unequivocal progress. This is now questioned in view of findings by archaeologists and paleopathologists showing that nutritional standards of Neolithic populations were generally inferior to that of hunter-gatherers, and that their life expectancy may well have been shorter too, in part due to diseases and harder work - hunter-gatherers must have covered their food needs with about 20 hours' work a week, while agriculture required much more and was at least as uncertain. The hunter-gatherers' diet was more varied and balanced than what agriculture later allowed. Average height went down from 5'10" (178 cm) for men and 5'6" (168 cm) for women to 5'5" (165 cm) and 5'1" (155 cm), respectively, and it took until the twentieth century for average human height to come back to the pre-Neolithic Revolution levels.[56] Agriculturalists had more anaemias and vitamin deficiencies, more spinal deformations and more dental pathologies.[29]

Personally, I would question whether we, in this century, are not sliding backwards once again.
The number of vitamin deficiencies discussed on this forum, the diabetes 'epidemic' itself, the increase in sugar intake and obesity, along with the falling nutritional content of processed food, all indicate a downward trend on nutrition and overall health.

As always, academics will debate these things to death.

I have always thought that this is why I have a deep and abiding dislike of full time work.
20 hours though? I could manage that easily.

 

[douglas99]

It was with the advent of farming, circa 10,000 years ago.
The evidence is skeletal and dental, from archaeological digs.
Average height declined, musculature altered, teeth showed more decay, and the jawbone narrowed, if I remember correctly.
There was also increased skeletal degeneration due to age (arthritis, and similar).

I'll have a look for refs.
Ah, here we are:

http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n12/full/1601646a.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesolithic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic
Apologies for using Wikipedia. I wouldn't usually, but the articles do give a great over view, and (except for the Neolithic article above, they are well referenced)

For better detail on the Neolithic diet, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution
in particular, this paragraph
'It has long been taken for granted that the introduction of agriculture had been an unequivocal progress. This is now questioned in view of findings by archaeologists and paleopathologists showing that nutritional standards of Neolithic populations were generally inferior to that of hunter-gatherers, and that their life expectancy may well have been shorter too, in part due to diseases and harder work - hunter-gatherers must have covered their food needs with about 20 hours' work a week, while agriculture required much more and was at least as uncertain. The hunter-gatherers' diet was more varied and balanced than what agriculture later allowed. Average height went down from 5'10" (178 cm) for men and 5'6" (168 cm) for women to 5'5" (165 cm) and 5'1" (155 cm), respectively, and it took until the twentieth century for average human height to come back to the pre-Neolithic Revolution levels.[56] Agriculturalists had more anaemias and vitamin deficiencies, more spinal deformations and more dental pathologies.[29]

As always, academics debate these things to death.

I have always thought that this is why I have a deep and abiding dislike of full time work.
20 hours though? I could manage that easily.

Neanderthal man ate grains

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12071424

We've always eaten then them.
Social reasons of the neolithic age meant farming could enable populations to grow crops in a stable area, such as a village rather than forage for them.

(and wiki is fine for me, I'm not precious so long as the information is factual, the internet's a big enough place anyway)

 

[Brunneria]

Neanderthal man ate grains

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12071424

We've always eaten then them.
Social reasons of the neolithic age meant farming could enable populations to grow crops in a stable area, such as a village rather than forage for them.

(and wiki is fine for me, I'm not precious so long as the information is factual, the internet's a big enough place anyway)

Yup, Neanderthal man probably ate grains.
But they were not a staple, and they were not cultivated in the quantities and manner that is considered to be farming. They certainly did not impact on lifespan, health and skeletal structure in a way that is measurable in the archaeological record.
And Neanderthals died out around 40,000 years ago.

Neolithic man (genetically identical to modern humans) lived (and farmed) from 10,000 to approx 3,000years ago. They were the first true farmers, using grains as staples.

And the problem with accepting vague, inadequately referenced opinions as 'fact' is that facts need to be evidenced.

If we can't list sources, evidence and respected conclusions, then we are dealing in opinion, hearsay and blather.

Which have nothing to do with fact.

 

[douglas99]

Yup, Neanderthal man ate grains.
But they were not a staple, and they were not cultivated in the quantities and manner that is considered to be farming. They certainly did not impact on lifespan, health and skeletal structure in a way that is measurable in the archaeological record.

And the problem with accepting vague, inadequately referenced opinions as 'fact' is that facts need to be evidenced.

If we can't list sources, evidence and respected conclusions, then we are dealing in opinion, hearsay and blather.

Which have nothing to do with fact.

No, I'm still fine with you using wiki.

Even though most of your post was actually your opinion on Neanderthal man, rather than actual facts about his diet.

 

[Brunneria]

No, I'm still fine with you using wiki.

Even though most of your post was actually your opinion on Neanderthal man, rather than actual facts about his diet.

Lol.

I tell you what, Douglas.
You come up with the evidence on what you are claiming about Neanderthal man, and I will have a look at it. Provided you cite references to actual archaeological evidence that has been published and peer reviewed. I'm afraid that tv programmes and news reports have usually had the evidence massaged for dramatic effect.

Until now, all you have done is vaguely mention 'facts' without actually showing them to have any credibility.

 

[equipoise]

So, no proof, no valid argument, no admission you entirely mis-read the wiki article, didn't realise it referred to one specific privileged group, and just won't admit you jumped in feet first, and were completely wrong?
Fair enough.
Rhetoric without proof or reason.

Hmm.

Here you are Douglas -- a bit of reading if you are actually interested in finding out about this topic. Let me know when you've finished and want to engage in a proper discussion:

Boyer, G. R., ‘Malthus was right after all: poor relief and birth rates in southeastern England’, Journal of Political
Economy, 97 (1989), pp. 93–114.

Campbell, B. M. S., English seigniorial agriculture 1250–1450 (Cambridge, 2000).
Campbell, B. M. S., ‘The agrarian problem in the early fourteenth century’, Past and Present, 188 (2005),
pp. 3–70.

Chandra, R. K., ‘Nutrition, immunity and infection: from basic knowledge of dietary manipulation of immune
responses to practical application of ameliorating suffering and improving survival’, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 93 (1996), pp. 14304–7.
Clark, G., ‘The long march of history: farm wages, population, and economic growth, England 1209–1869’,
Economic History Review, 60 (2007), pp. 97–135.

Cummins, N., Kelly, M., and Ó Gráda, C., ‘Living standards and plague in London, 1560–1665’, University
College Dublin School of Economics working paper (2013), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract
_id=2289094 (accessed on 29 July 2013).
Davenport, R., Boulton, J., and Schwarz, L., ‘Infant and young adult mortality in London’s West End,
1750–1824’, Newcastle Univ., The Pauper Lives Project working paper (2010) http://research.ncl.ac.uk/
pauperlives/infantandchildmortality.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2013).
Ecclestone, M., ‘Mortality of rural landless men before the Black Death: the Glastonbury head-tax lists’, Local
Population Studies, 63 (1999), pp. 6–29.
Galloway, P. R., ‘Annual variations in deaths by age, deaths by cause, prices, and weather in London 1670 to
1830’, Population Studies, 39 (1985), pp. 487–505.
Gelman, A. and Hill, J., Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models (NewYork, 2007).
Gottfried, R. S., Epidemic disease in fifteenth century England: the medical response and the demographic consequences
(New Brunswick, NJ, 1978).
Hatcher, J., ‘Mortality in the fifteenth century: some new evidence’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., XXXIX
(1986), pp. 19–38.
Hatcher, J., Piper, A. J., and Stone, D., ‘Monastic mortality: Durham Priory, 1395–1529’, Economic History
Review, LIX (2006), pp. 667–87.
Healey, J., ‘Socially selective mortality during the population crisis of 1727–1730: evidence from Lancashire’,
Local Population Studies, 81 (2008), pp. 58–74.
Hindle, S., On the parish?: the micro-politics of poor relief in rural England c. 1550–1750 (Oxford, 2004).
Hindle, S., ‘Dearth and the English revolution: the harvest crisis of 1647–50’, Economic History Review, 61, S1
(2008), pp. 64–98.
Hollingsworth, T. H., ‘A note on the mediaeval longevity of the secular peerage 1350–1500’, Population Studies,
29 (1975), pp. 155–9.
Hoskins,W. G., ‘Harvest fluctuations and English economic history, 1480–1619’, Agricultural History Review, 12,
1 (1964), pp. 28–46.
Kershaw, I., ‘The great famine and agrarian crisis in England 1315–1322’, Past and Present, 59 (1973), pp. 3–50.
Laslett, P., The world we have lost (1965).
Lee, R. D., ‘Short-term variation: vital rates, prices, and weather’, in E. A. Wrigley and R. Schofield, eds., The
population history of England, 1541–1871: a reconstruction (1981), pp. 356–401.
Lee, R. and Anderson, M., ‘Malthus in state space: macro economic-demographic relations in English history,
1540–1870’, Journal of Population Economics, 15 (2002), pp. 195–220.
Leonard, E. M., The early history of English poor relief (Cambridge, 1900).
Lindert, P. H., ‘Poor relief before the welfare state: Britain versus the Continent, 1780–1880’, European Review
of Economic History, 2 (2006), pp. 101–40.
Nash, A. E., ‘The mortality pattern of the Wiltshire lords of the manor, 1242–1377’, Southern History, 2 (1980),
pp. 31–43.
Nicolini, E. A., ‘Was Malthus right? AVAR analysis of economic and demographic interactions in pre-industrial
England’, European Review of Economic History, 11 (2007), pp. 99–121.
Nightingale, P., ‘Some new evidence of crises and trends of mortality in late medieval England’, Past and Present,
187 (2005), pp. 33–68.
Ó Gráda, C., ‘Making famine history’, Journal of Economic Literature, XLV (2007), pp. 5–38.
O’Brien, P. K., ‘The political economy of British taxation, 1660–1815’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., LXI
(1988), pp. 1–32.
Post, J. D., ‘Famine, mortality, and epidemic disease in the process of modernization’, Economic History Review,
2nd ser., XXIX (1976), pp. 14–37.
Postan, M. M. and Titow, J., ‘Heriots and prices on Winchester manors’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., XI
(1959), pp. 392–411.
Razi, Z., Life, marriage and death in a medieval parish: economy, society and demography in Halesowen 1270–1400
(Cambridge, 1980).
Razzell, P., Population and disease: transforming English society, 1550–1850 (2007).
Razzell, P. and Spence, C., ‘The hazards of wealth: adult mortality in pre-twentieth-century England’, Social
History of Medicine, 19 (2006), pp. 381–405.
Rosenthal, J. T., ‘Mediaeval longevity: and the secular peerage, 1350–1500’, Population Studies, 27 (1973),
pp. 287–93.
Rushton, N. S. and Sigle-Rushton, W., ‘Monastic poor relief in sixteenth-century England’, Journal of Interdisciplinary
History, XXXII (2001), pp. 193–216.
Schofield, R., Parish register aggregate analyses: the Population History of England database and introductory guide
(Colchester, 1998).
Sen, A., Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation (Oxford, 1981).
Slack, P., Poverty and policy in Tudor and Stuart England (1989).
Solar, P. M., ‘Poor relief and English economic development before the industrial revolution’, Economic History
Review, 2nd ser., XLVIII (1995), pp. 1–22.
Titow, J. Z., English rural society 1200–1350 (1969).
Walter, J., ‘The social economy of dearth in early modern England’, in J. Walter and R. Schofield, eds., Famine,
disease and social order in early modern society (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 75–128.
Wrigley, E. A. and Schofield, R., The population history of England, 1541–1871: a reconstruction (1981).

 

[catherinecherub]

What is this one-upmanship actually proving?

If you want to keep trying to outdo each other then why not use the PM system?

 

[equipoise]

What is this one-upmanship actually proving?

If you want to keep trying to outdo each other then why not use the PM system?

It is not one-upmanship. I am making a very simple point which I would have thought was obvious.

 

[douglas99]

Yup, Neanderthal man probably ate grains.
But they were not a staple, and they were not cultivated in the quantities and manner that is considered to be farming. They certainly did not impact on lifespan, health and skeletal structure in a way that is measurable in the archaeological record.
And Neanderthals died out around 40,000 years ago.

Neolithic man (genetically identical to modern humans) lived (and farmed) from 10,000 to approx 3,000years ago. They were the first true farmers, using grains as staples.

And the problem with accepting vague, inadequately referenced opinions as 'fact' is that facts need to be evidenced.

If we can't list sources, evidence and respected conclusions, then we are dealing in opinion, hearsay and blather.

Which have nothing to do with fact.

No, you can read the report, and read the studies it references.

Obviously that's my shortcoming though, and I sure it won't be yours.

I am sure you will never reference a news report, and will limit your posts to listing sources, evidence, and respected conclusions, it would be a shame if you turned out to be hypocritical, but I'm confident you won't be.