Seems like the scientific theory is that grains are bad because mankind has not evolved the digestive/energy systems to process it as well as meat. 10,000 years ago farming did not exist.
It makes sense, but I also think the advent of farming, evolutionarily speaking probably has to be the most significant event in human history. Even more significant than large brains, etc.
The ability to subsist on grains changed our world from a couple million homo sapiens to a 6-7 billion homo sapien type world.
Even over only 500 generations, the ability to thrive on grains and outbreed others who could not would be remarkly pronounced for these mutations. They would spread quickly like wildfire throughout the entire population (like speech, for instance).
Such a unique stressor event would produce rapid, rapid change. And man is capable of rapid changes in 10,000 year time frames. Does anyone here think that modern humans arent vastly different looking than humans of say 10,000 - 20,000 years ago??
Look how fast people learned how to digest milk in adulthood. It provided a massive advantage over those who couldnt, and now most people do have that gene. I say the lactose-intolerant man will thrive, and the carb-intolerant man will die off!
This question will be hotly debated on both sides. I have posted a great overview on grains below. It is from a Paleo point of view, so be aware of that, but it does give great information and citations to boot.
seems like processed grains have only been around for a few generations, so not a chance in heck of much genetic machinery existing to use that stuff optimally. Even corn, possibly, if u are a native-indian, you may have a 50 generation (when did they cross over alaska?) evolutionary ‘n**ger-rig’ in your gut to help cope… but if you are a white man, you’re probably screwed.
So yeah fruit, veggies, meat, and some types of whole grains. In the future one day the carb-man will be dominant, but I guess that doesnt help much for your physique today.
From an evolutionary perspective, what survival advantage does man gain from slowly adapting digestive systems? We are omnivores and eaters of opportunity, so what benefit is there in possessing a digestive system that is unable to handle a varied diet?
Is man’s ability to consume a substance directly linked with his domestication of said substance? Man has been eating grains for 100,000 years, with the majority of those being before the first agricultural revolution.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Answer these questions for me-
From an evolutionary perspective, what survival advantage does man gain from slowly adapting digestive systems? We are omnivores and eaters of opportunity, so what benefit is there in possessing a digestive system that is unable to handle a varied diet?
Is man’s ability to consume a substance directly linked with his domestication of said substance? Man has been eating grains for 100,000 years, with the majority of those being before the first agricultural revolution.[/quote]
Your first point is completely meaningless in a world where survival advantages no longer exist. People who contract diseases and sickness that were once deadly can live for years, people who are unbelievable dumb, feeble, or overweight can obtain food quite easily from any corner store. Contemporary society has dulled natural selection significantly.
Your second point is also fairly short sighted as 100,000 years is a drop in the bucket on a planet that is 3500 million years old.
~
I’m sure there are plenty of studies that will point to either side of the spectrum regarding the original question. I think it is up to the individual to find out what works best for their body, goals, and lifestyle, and proceed forth accordingly.
This thread is going to become an exact copy of the “Meant to Eat” thread.
Great Read: Opening Pandora’s Bread Box: The Critical Role of Wheat Lectin in Human Disease
Summary: [quote]Lectin is a type of ‘wheat germ agglutinin’ (WGA) and glycoprotein. Through thousands of years of selectively breeding wheat for increasingly larger quantities of protein, the concentration of WGA lectin has increased proportionately.
WGA is largely responsible for many of wheat’s pervasive ill effects.
What?s more, WGA is found in highest concentrations in “whole wheat,” including its supposedly superior sprouted form.
What is unique about the WGA glycoprotein is that it can do direct damage to the majority of tissues in your body without requiring a specific set of genetic susceptibilities or immune-mediated articulations.
This may explain why chronic inflammatory and degenerative conditions are endemic to wheat-consuming populations.
WGA lectin is an exceptionally tough adversary as it is formed by the same disulfide bonds that make vulcanized rubber and human hair so strong, flexible and durable.
Like man-made pesticides, lectins are extremely small, resistant to breakdown by living systems, and tend to accumulate and become incorporated into tissues where they interfere with normal biological processes.
At exceedingly small concentrations, WGA stimulates the synthesis of pro-inflammatory chemical messengers. WGA induces thymus atrophy in rats. WGA can pass through the blood-brain barrier. It may also interfere with gene expression and disrupt endocrine function.[/quote]
That’s just a summary. For the full article - Opening Pandora's Bread Box: The Critical Role of Wheat Lectin While I’m no expert on the “biochemistry” discussed in the above summary, I can say that I feel a hell of a lot better when I don’t eat wheat. Also a lot of the points that are made at least seem to make sense.
Survival advantages didn’t exist 10,000-100,000 years ago? If grains made people as sick as many like to claim due to an inability to digest them, then 10,000 years or 100,000 should have been plenty of time since definitive advantages did make a difference in the paleolithic period. Are you really trying to argue that anything resembling contemporary society existed 100,000 years ago? I’m sure cave men had plenty of technology with which to bolster up the sick and feeble.
100,000 years is drop in the bucket in comparison to the age of the earth, but in comparison to the amount of time humans have been on this earth, it is significant. Considering that genetic studies state an age of 500,000 years for the human race and the fossil record suggests divergence at around 200,000 years ago, 100,000 years is a very significant amount of time.
Considering that actual evolutionary biologists (people who actually study the evolutionary past of humans instead of writing blogs about whatever wacky evolutionary justification they’ve come up with for their own rationalizations) are demonstrating evidence of directional selection in the human genome within the past 15,000 years, I would say 100,000 is entirely significant.
Evolution is slow, but not that slow. A species that takes over 100,000 years to develop simple traits such as specific gut flora would certainly not have gone on to become the dominant apex predator on this planet, especially when that species lacks the physical gifts with which to dominate in the animal kingdom.
It certain doesn’t hold to logic that such a slowly adapting species would proliferate to all corners of the globe and exist on whatever sources of sustenance was available.
I don’t post very often these days, more of a lurker than anything else, but I thought I would play devils advocate with this thread.
A recent bout of research has demonstrated that Tibetans evolved genetic mutations within the last 3,000 years to withstand high altitude environment; this piece of research has demonstrated that the human genome is capable of much faster adaptation than initially thought.
If the the modern human race has been in existence for 200,000 years then the possibility for the human race to mutate is very real.
The above example is quite an extreme one, it must be said however.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Leaving aside what may or may not have happened 1000s of years ago, there is a definite and provable tolerance/irritant level associated with grains (and dairy and sugar) for many people, but on an individual basis.
To say “grains are bad” is retarded. To say “grains are bad for some people” is 100% correct.
BBB[/quote]
This F!@#ing statement should (but it wont) put an end to this thread. Some people are intolerant to many of the compounds found in grains, so for them its bad. For people who have no complications, its good.
[quote] therajaj wrote:
what would you use as a measuring stick as to whether grains are suited for you or not?
[/quote]
Simple, eliminate them from your diet for awhile, maybe a month or more, but keep calories, protein, fiber etc all the same as before. Observe any changes in body composition, general well being, any signs of inflammation etc for changes.
I think its not just modern grains that SOME people are intolerant to, but also all the preservatives and artificial nonsense put into commercially produced breads/grains etc that could cause problems, or compound them. Certainly not everyone is intolerant, but I think many more people are intolerant to them than previously thought. It still has to be assessed on an individual basis however.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
what would you use as a measuring stick as to whether grains are suited for you or not? [/quote]
I use muscle testing on my subjects. With it, I can test for strong, neutral or weak responses associated with any foodstuff, supplement, drug or even PED.
BBB[/quote]
I must admit I am a little skeptical with this muscle testing.
