Hi I have a question about Dr Greger author of, How not to die. And exponent of the plant-based diet, he says fat causes diabetes not carbs.

The diets of the ancestors… an hour of Googlings and an hour of thinking about it. The following information is not fact checked but I will make statements about it as if it was fact, like someone pretending to be an expert.

Modern humans have been farming grains for at least 10,000 years, gathering and storing grains for at least 11,000 years, and gathering it for at least 23,000 years. It looks like humans have been grinding grains with stone tools before eating them for at least 105,000 years.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...feasting-on-grains-for-at-least-100000-years/

Modern humans have been gathering and cooking starchy root vegetables for at least 120,000 years. Cooking implies preparing and eating fairly large amounts in one sitting.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/found-earliest-evidence-humans-cooking-eating-starch

It looks like it wasn’t just Homo Sapiens who were at it, Neanderthals were too. Analysis of fossilized microbes from Neanderthal remains show that there were starch eating microbes in their mouths which feed via enzymes in their saliva. These microbes are practically indistinguishable from those in modern human mouths.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...s-early-humans-ate-starch-and-why-it-matters/

Think about that. Those microbes had to evolve to thrive in both Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal mouths while there was enough regular starch in their diets to feed those microbes. The microbes wouldn’t have evolved otherwise. This suggest that, and this is a bit of a leap, that those microbes did not evolve in either Home Sapiens or Neanderthal mouths, but in the mouths of our common ancestor. That’s regular starch eating for at least 500,000 years.

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/who-were-the-neanderthals.html

It’s also thought that eating considerable amounts of starch was key to the evolution of the modern human brain.

https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opin...ot-a-paleo-diet--advanced-the-human-race.html

That’s a very long time in evolutionary terms. So long in fact that it doesn’t really matter. Analysis of the DNA of different peoples from around the world suggest that as we populated every corner of the world, our starch digesting abilities evolved along with that expansion.

https://www.nature.com/news/2007/070903/full/news070903-21.html

Conclusion – one hour on Google indicates that we are very, very well evolved omnivores. It further suggests that any statement uttered by a self-proclaimed diet expert that we have been eating grains for only 10,000 years, or references to the diets of primates, or that we once ate like carnivores, when used to justify a niche diet, is highly suspect. Either they can’t use Google or they’re parroting something they heard which sounded good and they didn’t bother to check it. Alternatively, they did their Googlings, they know what they’re saying is suspect, and they’re saying it anyway. Suspect.

HairySmurf said:

It further suggests that any statement uttered by a self-proclaimed diet expert that we have been eating grains for only 10,000 years, or references to the diets of primates, or that we once ate like carnivores, when used to justify a niche diet, is highly suspect. Either they can’t use Google or they’re parroting something they heard which sounded good and they didn’t bother to check it. Alternatively, they did their Googlings, they know what they’re saying is suspect, and they’re saying it anyway. Suspect.

Click to expand...

Yes! And YES!

Fantastic fantasies abound on both sides of the carb/fat, meat/grain and vegan/carni divides. Be wary of any sentence that starts with "We evolved", because that "we" is a disparate bunch of folk, evolving over very long period of time, over very different parts of the planet. Changes can also happen in the 'blink of an eye'. Even if we had only been eating grains for 10k years (500 generations), a much lesser period of time has allowed lactase persistence in various peoples.


We have evidence going back nearly 200k year of starch-eating (Not long before we unearth evidence going back even further, I suspect), and so ubiquitous was the eating of starch that not only do humans have more starch receptors than our frugivorous cousins, but so do animals that evolved alongside us.




'We' were neither carnivores nor vegans. And while we seem to still share many/most taxonomical traits with our frugivorous cousins, behaviourally and evolutionarily-speaking we are/were opportunistic omnivores, with (I believe) the stomach-acid strength of vultures. We would've eaten bugs and practiced both cannibalism and infanticide. So much for the paleo-washing of 'our' evolution.

...Oh, and fruit doesn't have A season. FRUITS have SEASONS! At such a point as we descended from the trees, we'd have been surrounded by fruit all-year-round. Also, it's not fruit that is the real key to bears being fat enough to survive Winter


Lastly (and this is conjecture on my part), nobody who had any idea of the realities of starvation would ever choose to be in ketosis.

Anyway...good to see such open-minded enquiry.

I'll share a link to a blog that does a very deep-dive into evolution, in the context of the current (online/social-media) nutritional narrative(s). It's unashamedly vegan-forward and anti-paleo (or at least the paleo that 'we' are being sold), which might make it intolerable for some. I also don't necessarily subscribe to all that's being shared. However, everything is very well cited and backed-up, and so can provide a good jumping-off point for further research. Each post comes with full transcript and links. However, due to age, there will be many dead links. So you might need to slog through the videos either way


The most apropos section is 'THE PRIMITIVE NUTRITION SERIES', but there's a lot of fun to be had in other sections

Have fun!

Beating-My-Betes said:

Lastly (and this is conjecture on my part), nobody who had any idea of the realities of starvation would ever choose to be in ketosis.

Click to expand...

What does this statement mean? Are you really suggesting ketosis is the same biologically as starvation?

JenniferM55 said:

I believe our ancestors ate when they had a kill, or when they found a fruit or nut bush, they were never told about the concept of three meals a day. They filled their bellies when they could, the rest of their time they fasted which could have lasted days. While regularly fasting their bodies would go into the state of autophagy where toxins, tired cells, viruses, surplus fat etc were expelled, used or renewed - we don't give our bodies the chance to go into autophagy these days. As a species we've definitely lost our way.

Click to expand...

We didn't fast. We starved. Fasting is intentional, and nobody who has experienced the ravages of potentially life-ending starvation would ever choose to restrict when food was around.

HSSS said:

What does this statement mean? Are you really suggesting ketosis is the same biologically as starvation?

Click to expand...

It's a continuum - From fed to dead. Ketosis, at least after the first couple of days, is what happens in between.

Beating-My-Betes said:

We didn't fast. We starved. Fasting is intentional, and nobody who has experienced the ravages of potentially life-ending starvation would ever choose to restrict when food was around.

Click to expand...

But the ancestors being discussed didn’t restrict food when it was around.
And what we do is deliberate and planned so it is fasting.

Trying to suggest a person choosing to fast and be in ketosis is akin to starving is quite frankly a ridiculous extreme and unrealistic comparison.

HSSS said:

But the ancestors being discussed didn’t restrict food when it was around.
And what we do is deliberate and planned so it is fasting.

Click to expand...

What we might do is fasting i.e intentional. What our ancestors did during times of scarcity was not. So calling it fasting, as the author of the original comment did, is incorrect.

HSSS said:

Trying to suggest a person choosing to fast and be in ketosis is akin to starving is quite frankly a ridiculous extreme and unrealistic comparison.

Click to expand...

Again, I was responding to the very specific context given in the original comment.

But I think you're just generally missing my point.

Beating-My-Betes said:

But I think you're just generally missing my point.

Click to expand...

you said

Beating-My-Betes said:

nobody who had any idea of the realities of starvation would ever choose to be in ketosis.

Click to expand...

followed by

Beating-My-Betes said:

It's a continuum - From fed to dead. Ketosis, at least after the first couple of days, is what happens in between.

Click to expand...

What point is it I’m missing? You flat out say anyone who choose ketosis has no idea what starvation is and that ketosis is akin to mild starvation and on your way to death. Scaremongering in my book.

The first assumption is huge, and inaccurate. How can you possibly assume you can be aware of our knowledge of the subject or motivation? Many of us here do choose ketosis. Are you saying none us understand starvation.

The second shows that you really don’t understand that it is perfectly possible to meet all dietary requirements in terms of essential amino acids, proteins, fats, vitamins, minerals and even calories (ie everything required) whilst in ketosis without the ravages of what actual starvation does.

Just because someone in starvation goes through AND PAST nutritional ketosis does not mean the reverse is true too. There are other ways than starving of reaching it (Extreme endurance exercise, sufficient foods just very low carb, illness, medications, even in rare cases breastfeeding in combination with other factors can do it). People eating very low carb and deliberately in nutritional ketosis are neither starving themselves nor will reach starvation.

So yes I totally fail to see your point

HSSS said:

What point is it I’m missing?

Click to expand...

All of them!

The context of the original comment to which I responded was energy scarcity, so I have no idea why you're going on about ketosis in a 'fed' state.

Beating-My-Betes said:

All of them!

The context of the original comment to which I responded was energy scarcity, so I have no idea why you're going on about ketosis in a 'fed' state.

Click to expand...

I’m responding to your comments.

HSSS said:

I’m responding to your comments.

Click to expand...

Let's perhaps nip a few of your notions in the bud(s):

I do have various issues with the false-narratives used to 'sell' such the keto/low-carb diet, along with the tendency for it to be animal-heavy. However, I don't have a problem with people choosing such a WOE. I also have no issue with fasting, either intermittent or extended, and have a ton of my own experience with various fasting modalities.

I also think it's very important to make the distinction between fed-state/dietary ketosis and fasted ketosis. I don't think I've suggested that fed-state/dietary ketosis is akin to starvation. Perhaps I should've been clearer...

I don't

To provide context for my comments, I'll go back to the comment I originally responded to:

I believe our ancestors ate when they had a kill, or when they found a fruit or nut bush, they were never told about the concept of three meals a day. They filled their bellies when they could, the rest of their time they fasted which could have lasted days. While regularly fasting their bodies would go into the state of autophagy where toxins, tired cells, viruses, surplus fat etc were expelled, used or renewed - we don't give our bodies the chance to go into autophagy these days. As a species we've definitely lost our way.

Click to expand...

I first took issue with the notion that when food was scarce these people fasted. As should be clear, fasting is a choice. The rest of the comment goes on to make certain claims about the benefits of fasting, and is capped off with a lamenting of how our species has lost its way. To me, this (and the whole comment really) implies that our ancestors were possessed of some ancient wisdom about fasting, that we've somehow lost today.

My comments related to that, and it should be very clear how much I disagree.

I won't comment on the ketosis thing as I know nothing on that topic. I do disagree somewhat with the phrase 'found a fruit or nut bush' as if they were incapable of learning where and when food can be found and maybe, perhaps, choosing to live nearby. If rats can do it, and they can, and primates can do it, which they all do, I'm pretty sure hominids were capable of learning where and when the food sources that fed them growing up might be found. Also, squirrels figured out how to store nuts and they're, well, squirrels.

Beating-My-Betes said:

Let's perhaps nip a few of your notions in the bud(s):

I do have various issues with the false-narratives used to 'sell' such the keto/low-carb diet, along with the tendency for it to be animal-heavy. However, I don't have a problem with people choosing such a WOE. I also have no issue with fasting, either intermittent or extended, and have a ton of my own experience with various fasting modalities.

I also think it's very important to make the distinction between fed-state/dietary ketosis and fasted ketosis. I don't think I've suggested that fed-state/dietary ketosis is akin to starvation. Perhaps I should've been clearer...

I don't

To provide context for my comments, I'll go back to the comment I originally responded to:


I first took issue with the notion that when food was scarce these people fasted. As should be clear, fasting is a choice. The rest of the comment goes on to make certain claims about the benefits of fasting, and is capped off with a lamenting of how our species has lost its way. To me, this (and the whole comment really) implies that our ancestors were possessed of some ancient wisdom about fasting, that we've somehow lost today.

My comments related to that, and it should be very clear how much I disagree.

Click to expand...

I too have an issue with false narratives. Such as the fact you are comparing nutritional ketosis with starvation.

Exactly what is the difference between fasted (deliberate and chosen) and fed ketosis, in your context? Ketosis is ketosis. A bit like pregnancy. You are or you aren’t, although the extent might vary. Receiving adequate nutrition, whether by OMAD fasting or 3 meals a delay traditional patterns for example is very different to starvation

If you have no issue with either fasting or a keto diet what is the relevance of the starvation comparisons? You still aren’t clear imo

HSSS said:

Such as the fact you are comparing nutritional ketosis with starvation.

Click to expand...

HairySmurf said:

I won't comment on the ketosis thing as I know nothing on that topic. I do disagree somewhat with the phrase 'found a fruit or nut bush' as if they were incapable of learning where and when food can be found and maybe, perhaps, choosing to live nearby. If rats can do it, and they can, and primates can do it, which they all do, I'm pretty sure hominids were capable of learning where and when the food sources that fed them growing up might be found. Also, squirrels figured out how to store nuts and they're, well, squirrels.

Click to expand...

Seems like the section in question is perhaps nothing more than a 'turn of phrase'. But yeah, it seems we were adept at both hunting AND gathering. If food was available in the surroundings, even if that meant scaling trees for honey, we would've had a shot at procuring it.

The point that seems to be missing is that humans evolved to eat when food was available, and live on reserves when no food was available.
This could involve periods of starvation and in some cases death.
So it could be considered that the natural cycle for humans is eat/fast (but not necessarily by choice).
One possible cause of current obesity and ill health could be that food is always available in high energy concentrations.
So humans no longer go through the regular cycle between fat storage and fat usage.
So humans may not have evolved to live well on the current available diet.

For all the "romantic" notions used to promote various diets (many of which generate revenue for the promoters) evolution takes place over many millennia whereas we have achieved food security over at most a few centuries.

LittleGreyCat said:

So it could be considered that the natural cycle for humans is eat/fast (but not necessarily by choice).

Click to expand...

While we clearly do have mechanisms to store excess and then utilise those resources during scarcity, I'm not sure this is natural in the sense that it was some intention, design etc. Just because this would've happened a lot during human evolution doesn't mean that's how it was 'meant' to be. Humans, just like other animals/mammals, when surrounded by 'natural' foods, are generally pretty good at riding the ebb and flow of hunger and satiation. And despite the all-too-common current obsession with elected fasting, along with the commensurate seeming disdain for those of us who enjoy eating multiple times a day, a robust appetite still generally equates to health.

Again, that doesn't mean that occasionally (perhaps routinely, even) mimicking scarcity cannot provide certain primary and secondary benefits. I just feel we should stop way short of claiming such a thing is natural and/or necessary, especially if it involves trying to ground such ideals in the romanticised/paleo-washed notions of our distant ancestry (To be clear, I don't think this is what you were doing).

LittleGreyCat said:

One possible cause of current obesity and ill health could be that food is always available in high energy concentrations

Click to expand...

There is definitely a lot to be said for the idea that ultra-refined foods becoming such a prominent part of the modern diet makes it easier to over-eat. But that doesn't account for all those who eat in such a manner with nary an additional pound in sight. Over-eating, especially in the long-term obesogenic sense, is a much more complex tapestry of issues.

But despite what many diet-gurus, MD's and ex-engineers would have us believe, obesity itself is really no mystery at all:

https://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2014/04/calorie-intake-and-us-obesity-epidemic.html

I'm a big fan of Dr Gregor. I'll say fan because it is undoubtedly a diet cult. Albeit a decent one.

He always links to the research he quotes. But I believe it is selective, in favour of veganism. You can find a study to support pretty much anything you like. Gregor acknowledges that.

He's also talking to the general public. Not specifically to those of us who already have T2.

I currently manage my diabetes following a whole food plant based diet. I'm happy, and it's working for me. Love Dr Gregor's books and vids. But Gregor says himself that T2 diabetics may have to limit refined carbs. And I certainly have to.

There are plenty of studies showing fat increases insulin resistance. But what diet works for you? You know that. And I bet for most of us T2s it definitely isn't one that's carb heavy.

Of course we know eating loads of sat fat/animal meat etc. isn't fantastic. But what's better for a T2? Find the right balance for you. If the bigger risk is from carbs then don't worry as much about the sat fat etc.

Guilty said:

Of course we know eating loads of sat fat/animal meat etc. isn't fantastic. But what's better for a T2? Find the right balance for you. If the bigger risk is from carbs then don't worry as much about the sat fat etc.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, I for one do not know that so your statement fails the logic test.

Guilty said:

He always links to the research he quotes. But I believe it is selective, in favour of veganism. You can find a study to support pretty much anything you like. Gregor acknowledges that.

He's also talking to the general public. Not specifically to those of us who already have T2.

I currently manage my diabetes following a whole food plant based diet. I'm happy, and it's working for me. Love Dr Gregor's books and vids. But Gregor says himself that T2 diabetics may have to limit refined carbs. And I certainly have to.

Click to expand...

It’s nice to see someone acknowledging the limitations and proviso’s that need to be attached to these books and YouTube’s

Guilty said:

There are plenty of studies showing fat increases insulin resistance. But what diet works for you? You know that. And I bet for most of us T2s it definitely isn't one that's carb heavy.

Of course we know eating loads of sat fat/animal meat etc. isn't fantastic. But what's better for a T2? Find the right balance for you. If the bigger risk is from carbs then don't worry as much about the sat fat etc.

Click to expand...

Body fat? Sure it’s a problem, especially around the organs. Dietary fat is quite a different thing and many fall into the trap of thinking it’s the same.

We certainly don’t know that about saturated fat. We have previously been told so I agree but then we have been told lots of things in the past about diet and health that turn out not to be the full picture or even flat out wrong. There are ever increasing studies and experts call this “knowledge” into question right now, the raw data, the assumptions it’s built on as well as the design flaws in the evidence it relies on.

At the most generous my opinion is that I outright know that carbs cause me a problem right now (high blood glucose and more than likely excessive amounts of insulin but that’s harder test). That high bgl unquestionably will cause damage uncheck and unaddressed. The saturated fat arguments may or may not be correct (I suspect not) and may or may not indirectly cause me trouble later. My focus is on the most effective way to reduce the bgl and that’s reducing the carbs not the saturated fats