Reversing Type 2 Diabetes

I read an article last night, that also said that Paleo man was quite tall, yet Neolithic man had shrunk by some considerable inches. This also ties into the time where Neo man began to put down roots and farm rather than being a hunter gatherer. You have to ask why once Neo man began to settle into communities, and farm, he should shrink?

There is also a major debate about the life span of Paleo man and modern man. Paleo man as we all know had to hunt for his dinner, so injury would not have been uncommon. The example given was, if Paleo man broke his leg, then he stood a chance of being lunch for a local bear. If modern man breaks a leg he gets a cast, then rests up on the couch watching tedious daytime television.

From my understanding, Paleo man lived a very healthy life, his earlier death was in part due to the hunting and gathering he would have done and injuries incurred. Many woman will have died during childbirth, so those two issues alone could account for a large proportion of early deaths in Paleo man.

xyzzy said:

I fully admit that now as T2 most grains are bad for me but only in the same kind of sense as saying most carbohydrate is bad for me. I don't doubt you can quite happily live on a Paleo diet and would not discourage people from doing it but only in the same way as I don't doubt that anyone can quite happily live on a healthy lchf diet or even a ketogenic diet that does contain some grains.

Click to expand...

It's not the same thing at all. Carbohydrates have always been part of our ancestral diet - from fruit, to leafy vegetables, to plant roots to tubers. We evolved to eat these things. It's true that modern cultivation methods have rendered some of them unrecognisable from the original plants, but they are more or less the same thing.

Grains are a neolithic invention, seeds of monocot grasses that have been artificially selected by humans to serve as food..Some birds evolved to eat grass seeds, we didn't.

Kurt Harris describes it much better than I ever could:

….if foods contribute to disease, it is unlikely (but not impossible) that the bad foods are what we have been eating a long time, and much more likely that they are something relatively new

…. a food being evolutionarily novel was a likely condition for it being an agent of disease, but that novelty was neither necessary nor sufficient for agent of disease status.

It seems obvious that the universe of foods that were newer or Neolithic would provide candidates for the dietary agents of disease, and that a disease-causing agent would be very likely to be a Neolithic one

but…. being a Neolithic food alone is not sufficient to make it an agent of disease.

When we have medical and metabolic evidence that a Neolithic food is healthy and we find its constituents to be totally compatible with foods we consider Paleolithic, we can conclude that food is not in the agent of disease part of the Venn diagram.

Click to expand...

http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/20 ... festo.html

Not all Neolithic foods are bad for us. Dairy is a good example of one that most people tolerate quite well and, especially in terms of heavy creams and cheeses, provides a relatively healthy source of dietary fat.

When 55% of world food (by energy) is contaminated by a single food type (grain) which also happens to be a neolithic invention, then you have to ask yourself, is it doing any harm?


KDH again:

All plants tend to be in a contest with predators who might consume them. When we contemplate the chief difference between plants and animals, it makes sense that animal sources in general may be healthier for us. Animals are mobile, and can avoid predation by running away from us. Plants use a variety of strategies to avoid predation, but one of them is to discourage consumption by elaborating toxic substances. Hence there is a contest of co-evolution over generations between plants “trying” to avoid consumption and animals evolving adaptations (or not) to the plant’s defenses.

Nuts are seeds that have a physical hard shell to discourage consumption. Relying more on this physical barrier than poisons, nuts like walnuts or pecans are seeds but safer to eat than grass seeds.

Gluten grains are grasses that use wind to disperse their seeds. The seeds contain carbohydrate and protein meant to help the seed germinate and grow. The seed has lectins and physical structure designed to discourage consumption by predators, whether single cell, fungus, insects or vertebrates. Some creatures, like birds, are clearly adapted to overcome the defenses of gluten cereal grains and use them as a primary food source. Most animals, including most mammals and our closest relatives the omnivorous fruit and insect-eating chimpanzees, are not adapted to grains and don’t eat them in substantial quantities. The question is, are humans adapted?

The answer is no.

Click to expand...

http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/20 ... rains.html

I implore you to read the whole article.

Defren said:

I read an article last night, that also said that Paleo man was quite tall, yet Neolithic man had shrunk by some considerable inches. This also ties into the time where Neo man began to put down roots and farm rather than being a hunter gatherer. You have to ask why once Neo man began to settle into communities, and farm, he should shrink?

Click to expand...

"The Worst Mistake In The History Of The Human Race"
by Jared Diamond, Prof. UCLA School of Medicine
http://anthropology.lbcc.edu/handoutsdocs/mistake.pdf

One straightforward example of what paleopathologists have learned from
skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show
that the average height of hunter-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a
generous 5'9" for men, 5'5" for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height
crashed, and by 3000 B.C. had reached a low of 5'3" for men ,5' for women. By classical
times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still
not regained the average height of their distant ancestors.

Another example of paleopathology at work is the study of Indian skeletons from
burial mounds in the lllinois and Ohio river valleys. At Dickson Mounds, located near the
confluence of the Spoon and lllinois rivers, archaeologists have excavated some 800
skeletons that paint a picture of the health changes that occurred when a hunter-gatherer
culture gave way to intensive maize farming around A.D. 1150. Studies by George
Armelagos and his colleagues then at the University of Massachusetts show these
early farmers paid a price for their new-found livelihood. Compared to the huntergatherers
who preceded them, the farmers had a nearly fifty percent increase in enamel
defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia
(evidenced by a bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), a threefold rise in bone
lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions
of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. "Life expectancy at birth in
the preagricultural community was about twenty-six years," says Armelagos, "but in the
postagricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress
and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive."

Click to expand...

borofergie said:

Defren said:

I read an article last night, that also said that Paleo man was quite tall, yet Neolithic man had shrunk by some considerable inches. This also ties into the time where Neo man began to put down roots and farm rather than being a hunter gatherer. You have to ask why once Neo man began to settle into communities, and farm, he should shrink?

Click to expand...

"The Worst Mistake In The History Of The Human Race"
by Jared Diamond, Prof. UCLA School of Medicine
http://anthropology.lbcc.edu/handoutsdocs/mistake.pdf

One straightforward example of what paleopathologists have learned from
skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show
that the average height of hunter-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a
generous 5'9" for men, 5'5" for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height
crashed, and by 3000 B.C. had reached a low of 5'3" for men ,5' for women. By classical
times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still
not regained the average height of their distant ancestors.

Another example of paleopathology at work is the study of Indian skeletons from
burial mounds in the lllinois and Ohio river valleys. At Dickson Mounds, located near the
confluence of the Spoon and lllinois rivers, archaeologists have excavated some 800
skeletons that paint a picture of the health changes that occurred when a hunter-gatherer
culture gave way to intensive maize farming around A.D. 1150. Studies by George
Armelagos and his colleagues then at the University of Massachusetts show these
early farmers paid a price for their new-found livelihood. Compared to the huntergatherers
who preceded them, the farmers had a nearly fifty percent increase in enamel
defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia
(evidenced by a bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), a threefold rise in bone
lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions
of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. "Life expectancy at birth in
the preagricultural community was about twenty-six years," says Armelagos, "but in the
postagricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress
and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

+1 thanks Stephen. I have really just started to heavily read about this subject, so reading the above, answered the questions that I hadn't yet found answers too.

Stephen, I don't deny that "Gluten Grains" appear to be harmful when consumed in quantity which is why I said I tend toward that Paleo view myself. I just don't buy it lock stock and barrel. I don't think many things in this world are black or white they are usually some shade of grey.

The guy himself states "55% of world calories consumed is from grains". To me that could also be interpretted as "What an excellent source of energy grains have been as, look they've allowed the human race to expand to just under 7 billion people from the 5 million or so there were at the end of the Paleo era" So they have supported a 1400 times increase in human population which to me shows they are a pretty successful source of energy for human. 5 million comes from here http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-paleolithic-era.htm

By the end of the Paleolithic, all species of Homo except for modern humans went extinct. The global population was likely around 5 million by this time, and the range was across every continent besides Antarctica.

Click to expand...

What I see as the weakness in the Paleo viewpoint on gluten grains is not that they can be seen to do harm if consumed in quantity but it doesn't account for the global rise in obesity and T2 in the last 50 years. This "consumed in quantity" thing is a key thing to me. For example there are lots of common food sources other than for example wheat that if I consume in too much quantity would likely be detrimental to my health.

I find Lucy's "poisonous" wheat theory quite appealing as it seems to plug that last 50 years gap as effectively it states changes to wheat brought about by human intervention have increased the toxicity of wheat and consequently made it far more dangerous to eat than it ever was. Effectively an average human has such and such tolerance to wheat which is nowadays being exceeded because of the wheat varieties that are grown. Seems to make a lot of sense and would on the surface fit the data.

The other problem with being anti gluten grain is what to replace it with as it does support 55% of the worlds calorie requirements. I would guess here is where Lucy and many others of you will now rapidly diverge with my own viewpoint as if the poisoned wheat theory were proven to be true then I'd reluctantly genetically engineer my way around the problem by GM'ing a version of wheat that while it produced the same yields removed the "poisons". What else could you do to continue to support 7 billion people apart from letting them all starve?

xyzzy said:

The guy himself states "55% of world calories consumed is from grains". To me that could also be interpretted as "What an excellent source of energy grains have been as, look they've allowed the human race to expand to just under 7 billion people from the 5 million or so there were at the end of the Paleo era" So they have supported a 1400 times increase in human population which to me shows they are a pretty successful source of energy for human. 5 million comes from here

Click to expand...

You say that like it's a good thing. In what possible way is world overpopulation good? That's another good argument against grains - they fuelled an unsustainable growth in world population that is damaging the whole eco-system and threatens our future viability as a species.

By the end of the Paleolithic, all species of Homo except for modern humans went extinct. The global population was likely around 5 million by this time, and the range was across every continent besides Antarctica.

Click to expand...

Didn't have much problem with pollution, global warming and energy sustainability then, did they?

What I see as the weakness in the Paleo viewpoint on gluten grains is not that they can be seen to do harm if consumed in quantity but it doesn't account for the global rise in obesity and T2 in the last 50 years. This "consumed in quantity" thing is a key thing to me. For example there are lots of common food sources other than for example wheat that if I consume in too much quantity would likely be detrimental to my health.

Click to expand...

The other problem with being anti gluten grain is what to replace it with as it does support 55% of the worlds calorie requirements. I would guess here is where Lucy and many others of you will now rapidly diverge with my own viewpoint as if the poisoned wheat theory were proven to be true then I'd reluctantly genetically engineer my way around the problem by GM'ing a version of wheat that while it produced the same yields removed the "poisons". What else could you do to continue to support 7 billion people apart from letting them all starve?

Click to expand...

Dunno, maybe we could grow more wheat until we get to 13 million and then we'll all starve:


Not clever is it? Turns out Thomas Malthus might have been right after all.

Quite part from the wheat we have had for the past 50 years being different to the one eaten for many thousands of years by human, the method of processing that wheat has changed tremendously too. And not for the better.

You have all heard of Alloxan in wheat processing and diabetes, right?

http://health-arena.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/beware-of-white-processed-foods.html

:shock: :shock: Is that level of population by 2039,what we are heading for? jeez that doesn't sound sustainable in any way,shape or form! roblem:

More on Alloxan and diabetes http://www.diabeticshandbook.com/cause_of_diabetes.html

BlindDog said:

For example there are lots of common food sources other than for example wheat that if I consume in too much quantity would likely be detrimental to my health.

Click to expand...

What foods would those be?

Paul1976 said:

:shock: :shock: Is that level of population by 2039,what we are heading for? jeez that doesn't sound sustainable in any way,shape or form! roblem:

Click to expand...

Well obviously you're not in the grain-farming game...

borofergie said:

xyzzy said:

The guy himself states "55% of world calories consumed is from grains". To me that could also be interpretted as "What an excellent source of energy grains have been as, look they've allowed the human race to expand to just under 7 billion people from the 5 million or so there were at the end of the Paleo era" So they have supported a 1400 times increase in human population which to me shows they are a pretty successful source of energy for human. 5 million comes from here

Click to expand...

In what possible way is world overpopulation a good thing? That's another good argument against grains - they fuelled an unsustainable growth in world population that is damaging the whole eco-system and threatens our future viability as a species.

Click to expand...

Didn't say it was a good thing just that wheat seems to be a **** good source of energy to support exponential rises in population. A very different thing.

borofergie said:

By the end of the Paleolithic, all species of Homo except for modern humans went extinct. The global population was likely around 5 million by this time, and the range was across every continent besides Antarctica.

Click to expand...

Didn't have much problem with pollution, global warming and energy sustainability then, did they?

Click to expand...

No but they lived in caves, had no iPads, cars, health services and died very young from being eaten by bears. :lol:

borofergie said:

Dunno, maybe we could grow more wheat until we get to 13 million and then we'll all starve:

Not clever is it? Turns out Thomas Malthus might have been right after all.

Click to expand...

No but it is the situation the world finds itself in. As with global warming you have to deal with the reality of the situation not just wish it didn't exist and act appropriative. To me acting appropriately includes things like GM. In the end I dare say Gaia will teach us all a lesson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis as to who really runs the planet.

Paul1976 said:

:shock: :shock: Is that level of population by 2039,what we are heading for? jeez that doesn't sound sustainable in any way,shape or form! roblem:

Click to expand...

No its not but :shh:

xyzzy said:

Didn't say it was a good thing just that wheat seems to be a **** good source of energy to support exponential rises in population. A very different thing.

Click to expand...

It doesn't support it, it fuels it.

Thomas Malthus said:

"The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man".
Must it not then be acknowledged:
That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence,
That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and,
That the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice

Click to expand...

xyzzy said:

No but it is the situation the world finds itself in. As with global warming you have to deal with the reality of the situation not just wish it didn't exist and act appropriative. To me acting appropriately includes things like GM. In the end I dare say Gaia will teach us all a lesson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis as to who really runs the planet.

Click to expand...

That isn't a solution to the problem, it's just delaying it by fuelling future population growth.

All of which has nothing to do with obesity in the UK. We could reduce our dependence on grain and not starve to death.

What big dietary change happened 50 or so years ago? Hydrogenated vegetable fats became common additions to processed foods and homes began to have freezers or frozen food compartments in fridges. Ready meals started to appear with all sorts of additives to lengthen storage life and "improve" appearance and taste. Supermarkets also began to appear and people began to shop weekly instead of daily taking advantage of convenience food and the ability to keep it at home ready to pop into the oven. Prior to this, preserved food was limited to tinned, salted, smoked, pickled, jammed or dried food. Transfats, sugars and other additives are the problem, not the strain of wheat.

Anyway, this thread has gone way off topic.

borofergie said:

BlindDog said:

For example there are lots of common food sources other than for example wheat that if I consume in too much quantity would likely be detrimental to my health.

Click to expand...

What foods would those be?

Click to expand...

What about the link between eating too much read meat and bowel cancer?

Transfats, sugars and other additives are the problem, not the strain of wheat.

Click to expand...

I think you mean "and the strain of wheat"

it is not off topic because we are discussing why certain food contribute to diabetes, and how we can avoid them, and thus reduce their effect on our diabetes.

We can then reverse some of the damage done, perhaps. Or at least limit future damage.

xyzzy said:

What about the link between eating too much read meat and bowel cancer?

Click to expand...

Really? C'mon. There is no link.

Too much of anything is bad for you. That's what "too much" means. Duh.

[youtube]XV4yK-26smM[/youtube]

borofergie said:

That isn't a solution to the problem, it's just delaying it by fuelling future population growth.

Click to expand...

Agree but most humans or should I say most people with power are inherently self serving and stupid and don't act for the common good. It is why I hate and loathe all modern politicians. Read "Apocalypse When" by Willard Wells for a good synopsis of all the different ways humans are going to kill themselves off and the chances of likelihood and when for each method. I am a strong believer in James Lovelock and the Gaia theory of self correction just hope it doesn't happen too soon! I am under no illusion that unless humans are able to invent the means to populate other worlds and continue our pretty much viral spread out into the cosmos we are a doomed species just like countless others have been on this planet. Happy chap aren't I? :lol:

borofergie said:

All of which has nothing to do with obesity in the UK. We could reduce our dependence on grain and not starve to death.

Click to expand...

Again I have nothing against that viewpoint. It seems a sensible approach for our country so long as its done in a managed way. As you say the first thing is to get the problem recognised.

borofergie said:

xyzzy said:

What about the link between eating too much read meat and bowel cancer?

Click to expand...

Really? C'mon. There is no link.

Click to expand...

sadly,that didn't stop my consultant trying to blame my 'annular carcinoma of the sigmoid and descending colon' on eating lots of red meats,sedantary lifestyle and not eating enough wholegrains and the usual '5 a day ****' :roll: