Benefit of a Meat Only Diet

Training Bodybuilding
61

From Micheal Eades’ latest post:

"Since the most primitive organisms not using photosynthesis to obtain energy used the stored glucose and starch from those that did, it?s no wonder that we evolved with a primitive basic need for glucose as a sort of primary fuel.

But the fact that we don?t need to consume glucose and/or its storage form, starch, directly despite our requiring it for life is strong evidence that we had a meat-eating past. Let me explain.

Natural selection is a harsh taskmaster, one that rigorously weeds and trims systems back that aren?t required for optimal performance of the creature in question. If, for example, a specific organism requires substance X for life and there is no substance X in the environment of this organism, then the organism will have developed the metabolic machinery to convert whatever is at hand to substance X.

If it doesn?t and it has no substance X, then it dies, so it has to have a means to synthesis substance X. The processes that synthesize substance X require energy, but it?s worth the expenditure of this energy because if there is no substance X made, there is no life. The energy used to synthesize substance X is then not available for other uses and the organism budgets accordingly.

Now let?s say that our substance X-requiring organisms migrate to an area that is rich in substance X. They no longer have to make it?they can simply consume it. But all the machinery is there within them to make it, consuming energy. Sooner or later somewhere along the way one of these organisms is going to be born with a mutation in its substance X synthesizing machinery.

In the days before the vast fields of substance X were available that all these organisms are now feeding on, this mutation would have been fatal. But now it provides a huge metabolic advantage.

While all the other organisms are feeding on substance X and spending energy to run their own substance X-synthesizing pathways, the organism with the mutation can use that energy elsewhere giving it a powerful edge in the reproductive sweepstakes.

Over time all these organisms will evolve to the point to which none of them have to waste energy on the internal machinery to make substance X. When scientists study these organisms later on, they will call substance X vitamin X because it is essential to life for these creatures and they can?t make it themselves.

Getting back to us, we realize that we have all the internal biochemical machinery to make glucose out of protein and out of the glycerol from disassembled fat (triglycerides), but we have no machinery to make amino acids (the building blocks of protein) and no machinery to make the essential fats. These essential amino acids and these essential fats have to come from our diet.

And we can to a certain extent replace glucose with ketones, which come from the partial breakdown of fat in the liver.

So, we need glucose for many cellular processes simply because of our primitive systems dating back millions of years that evolved when glucose was really the only food available. But we?ve evolved ways to make glucose out of fat and protein and evolved a method to replace some of the glucose by ketones, which are a fat by product.

What this should tell us is that over the recent past of our evolutionary history protein and fat have been readily available and glucose may not have been. Where do we get protein and fat? The main source for both is meat.

Obviously in our Paleolithic past (and before) we had plenty of meat and not much starch, otherwise we would have evolved differently. If we had evolved in a situation in which we had plenty of starch and no meat, we would have evolved a way to make protein out of carbs (which we can?t) and essential fat out of carbs (which we can?t). The fact that we are structured the opposite tells us the real story.

And should lead us to reckon that if we evolved eating primarily meat and not much, if any, plants that we are fine tuned metabolically to operate optimally on such a diet. Which is the reason a low-carb diet works so well to reverse the diseases caused by eating in the reverse of our evolutionary heritage."

Link:

62

Viva la GOUT!!

63

[quote]max manus wrote:
From Micheal Eades’ latest post:
…
[/quote]

A lot of supposition. Ancient man clearly ate both animal and plant matter. I see no driving force that would evolve us away from eating plant matter. A mutation that stops us from utilizing plant matter has no reason to be positively selected.

I see plenty of driving force that leads us towards plant matter.

From tracking the gene that allows many of us to utilize dairy it seems that man evolves very quickly in adapting to diet.

The people that need meat only would not have been successful with 10,000 years of agriculture.

Not all of us are the same. Off the top of my head Pacific Islanders did not farm and although they did eat some plant matter they probably ate much more animal matter than Europeans.

I would love to see a study of Samoans vs Europeans both utilizing an agricultural diet.

64

I suspect low carb diets are successful because they lead people away from foods that are loaded with extra sugar, corn syrup etc.

Those people would likely also do well with more carbs if they would avoid the heavily processed stuff, unfortunately this can be very hard to do for many.

65

I bet we didn’t eat only meat , people at whatever they fucking SAW

like fruits and veggies (but not grains)

66

[quote]emonkeh wrote:
I bet we didn’t eat only meat , people at whatever they fucking SAW

like fruits and veggies (but not grains)[/quote]

they ate grains as well, wild grains, this dates back tens of thousands of years at least, apart from the fact beer making from grains is many thousands of years old, they’ve found even older men with grains in their stomachs and on their person, as a snack probably

I am sick of pseudo scientists from inferior backgrounds spouting crap about diet through pure speculation whilst ignoring so many facts.

You can find any amount of bullshit papers from joke journals - or worse, popular “non” fiction books - spouting any amount of tripe.

There is one and only one rule: try it and see if it works better for YOU.

Furthermore, who gives a flying crap what our ancestors ate. They were NOT bodybuilders. They were not weightlifters. Sure they were in better condition that typical Jo Average couch potato these days, but they lived generally short, brutal lives, infested with parasites, riddled with disease, malnutrition etc… and were not massive hulking phenomenon at the peak of their genetic potential.

Take any one of them and introduce any rubbish from today - a packet of chips, a can of coke - they would probably thrive on the extra calories. Don’t make the mistake that because they ate X and evolved to survive on it, means they can’t do better on Y diet if it was available.

Also a lot of people seem to think our ancestors were the neanderthals, or something similar. They were NOT. Neanderthals are a completely different branch and very different. They did eat mostly meat, they were shorter and much, much more muscular. There is evidence they fought woolly rhino, were injured and survived.

The romantic notion of our tough, meat eating ancestors is based largely on this romantic notion of neanderthals, we carry none of their genetic material, they are DEAD. Our ancestors were tiny versions of what we are now, short, slight, scavenging for anything they could get.

Find out for yourself what foods make you feel your best, strongest and healthiest. Use all “diet theories” as ideas on where to begin.

67

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
emonkeh wrote:
I bet we didn’t eat only meat , people at whatever they fucking SAW

like fruits and veggies (but not grains)

they ate grains as well, wild grains, this dates back tens of thousands of years at least, apart from the fact beer making from grains is many thousands of years old, they’ve found even older men with grains in their stomachs and on their person, as a snack probably

I am sick of pseudo scientists from inferior backgrounds spouting crap about diet through pure speculation whilst ignoring so many facts.

You can find any amount of bullshit papers from joke journals - or worse, popular “non” fiction books - spouting any amount of tripe.

There is one and only one rule: try it and see if it works better for YOU.

Furthermore, who gives a flying crap what our ancestors ate. They were NOT bodybuilders. They were not weightlifters. Sure they were in better condition that typical Jo Average couch potato these days, but they lived generally short, brutal lives, infested with parasites, riddled with disease, malnutrition etc… and were not massive hulking phenomenon at the peak of their genetic potential.

Take any one of them and introduce any rubbish from today - a packet of chips, a can of coke - they would probably thrive on the extra calories. Don’t make the mistake that because they ate X and evolved to survive on it, means they can’t do better on Y diet if it was available.

Also a lot of people seem to think our ancestors were the neanderthals, or something similar. They were NOT. Neanderthals are a completely different branch and very different. They did eat mostly meat, they were shorter and much, much more muscular. There is evidence they fought woolly rhino, were injured and survived.

The romantic notion of our tough, meat eating ancestors is based largely on this romantic notion of neanderthals, we carry none of their genetic material, they are DEAD. Our ancestors were tiny versions of what we are now, short, slight, scavenging for anything they could get.

Find out for yourself what foods make you feel your best, strongest and healthiest. Use all “diet theories” as ideas on where to begin.

[/quote]

I thought grains were a more recent food. I read somewhere that arab nations acan tolerate grains better as they have been using them for much longer. Fruit is better suited to peop-le colser to the equator.

I see some sense in starting out with what was suited to you based on ancestors, then like you said see how you feel after eating certain foods. And of course avoid the obvious crap processed food.

68

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
…
I thought grains were a more recent food. I read somewhere that arab nations acan tolerate grains better as they have been using them for much longer. Fruit is better suited to peop-le colser to the equator.

I see some sense in starting out with what was suited to you based on ancestors, then like you said see how you feel after eating certain foods. And of course avoid the obvious crap processed food.
[/quote]

Grains have been domesticated at least 10,000 years starting in Mesopotamia.

Wild grains have been consumed much, much longer than that.

69

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Grains have been domesticated at least 10,000 years starting in Mesopotamia.

Wild grains have been consumed much, much longer than that.

[/quote]

Yes and in fact, they think that grains which fermented and turned into wonderful beer, was the foundation of civilisation - because everyone loved beer so much, and you needed to set up grain storage and farms etc… to make it happen properly, that people started settling down.

Come on people, my cats used to eat grains and they are carnivores. You will eat anything if you are hungry. Even if it tastes like cardboard.

I don’t like wheat much but I eat it in bread. I prefer oats, and oat bread, but it is harder to find. Everyone is different. Find what works for you. I think start with Beradis’ kitchen list.

Also if accustomed to junk food, often healthy food might be hard to take at first … you need to give it time.

Note also I have no doubt that some people can thrive on an almost all meat diet. I know I can do pretty well on it and I do eat a lot of meat. My five food groups used to be cow, pig, chicken, sheep, potato. Yum!

70

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
max manus wrote:
From Micheal Eades’ latest post:
…

A lot of supposition. Ancient man clearly ate both animal and plant matter. I see no driving force that would evolve us away from eating plant matter. A mutation that stops us from utilizing plant matter has no reason to be positively selected.

I see plenty of driving force that leads us towards plant matter.

From tracking the gene that allows many of us to utilize dairy it seems that man evolves very quickly in adapting to diet.

The people that need meat only would not have been successful with 10,000 years of agriculture.

Not all of us are the same. Off the top of my head Pacific Islanders did not farm and although they did eat some plant matter they probably ate much more animal matter than Europeans.

I would love to see a study of Samoans vs Europeans both utilizing an agricultural diet.
[/quote]

Such studies have been made, and the pacific islanders do very badly on a modern, grain-based diet, worse than the average European/American. Same with native Americans, they do terrible on it. This indicates that some adaption to agricultural diets has taken place.

The ability to digest lactose is an interesting example, however this is an example of neoteny, ie the retention of a juvenile trait into adulthood. This can happen much faster than other types of adaption, especially when it’s as simple as retaining the production a single enzyme (lactase). Adapting our metabolic machinery to a high-carb, grain-based diet through natural selection would take much longer.

71

[quote]emonkeh wrote:
I bet we didn’t eat only meat , people at whatever they fucking SAW

like fruits and veggies (but not grains)[/quote]

Of course they did, WHEN it was available. Remember that they couldn’t go to the supermarket and buy fresh fruits year round like we can. Ice age man (115,000-10,000 years ago) would only have access to whatever was in season. For those living in Europe and Northern Asia, that wasn’t much most of the year.

Also, try meeting the calorie requirements of a highly active adult male hunter-gatherer by eating fruits and veggies…

One theory is that paleolithic man would “bulk up” in the fall, when fruits were available, trying to store as much fat as possible for the winter, and that this is one reason carbs are so effective at causing fat gain.

72

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
The romantic notion of our tough, meat eating ancestors is based largely on this romantic notion of neanderthals, we carry none of their genetic material, they are DEAD. Our ancestors were tiny versions of what we are now, short, slight, scavenging for anything they could get.
[/quote]

Whether Homo sapiens sapiens interbred with Neanderthals is an unresolved issue, so we don’t know if we’re carrying any of their genetic material.

It’s not true that our paleolithic ancestors were short and slight, unless you’re talking about Homo (/Australopithecus) habilis some 2 million years ago. In fact, stature fell by 4 inches on average with the introduction of agriculture, and lifespan decreased. Only with the last generation have we surpassed the stature of Cro-Magnon man.

Their bones were 11% stronger than ours, while osteoporosis became common with the introduction of agriculture (possibly as a result of anemia).

Even Homo erectus males (ca. a million years ago) are known to have reached 6 feet tall. How many 19th century men were 6 feet tall?

Many large mammals like ancient bison and mammoth were hunted to extinction by our ancestors in the mesolithic (after the extinction of Neanderthals). Though climate change probably played a role in the extinction of these animals too. Earlier, we hunted other large mammals like the mastodonts to extinction.

73

[quote]Skrussian wrote:
GribGrob wrote:
Benreturns wrote:

Did you learn to read in high school when you wern’t learning about the ATP cycle and water poisoning?

LOL. Agreed.
Skrussian, YOU are the dipshit.

Why don’t you discount what I said then instead of calling me a dipshit which is usually a clear sign that you can’t prove me wrong so you just try to insult me. You read some article, took it to be truth, and told it as such at a place where pretty much nothing is accepted at face value.

Somebody (me), and other also, called you out on your bullshit and now you don’t want to admit the guy with hair loss problems doesn’t have a PhD in physiology and anatomy.[/quote]

Is your reading comprehension really that poor? Benreturns never claimed to believe or endorse any of what he copied and pasted in his original post. He did so for the sake of…wait for it…DISCUSSION, which has been pretty good so far.

Sheesh.

74

[quote]CC wrote:

Is your reading comprehension really that poor? Benreturns never claimed to believe or endorse any of what he copied and pasted in his original post. He did so for the sake of…wait for it…DISCUSSION, which has been pretty good so far.

Sheesh.
[/quote]

Cheers CC. I will say though: this thread, although it makes great reading is getting way to umm… advanced for my limited knowledge on the subject in some places!! Great stuff though!I will need to do some more homework to keep up lol.

As a side note, i have cut out (very nearly) all carbs after midday over the last fews days (except some post workout) and I have energy to spare. I never feel sluggish after eating a meal without carbs in it. I went out for lunch today and ate a steak and chicken platter. Extra veg and no potatoes. No drowsiness or heavy feeling after.

Ditto friday and thursday. Im loading up on veg alot more and my only carbs come from wholegrain bread (morning toast with cottage cheese amongst the other stuff i eat first thing) and my midmorning tuna sarnies. No bloating, no desire to sleep at my desk at 3pm every day! great workouts too!

75

Alright, this guy is WRONG right off the bat. I studied anthro and archaeology, I’ve read plenty of papers and journal articles on this stuff. Our ancestors did NOT just eat meat all the time. Yes, there were periods when people would have to rely on it more than other times. They couldn’t just pop down to the grocery store when they were hungry. That would be were the hunting and gathering, fishing and foraging came in. This would be especially true in the higher latitudes of Eurasia and North America.

Yes, there are coprolites (poop) that show that people, probably neanderthals, ate only meat at various times of the year. In Ice Age Europe in the winter greens would have been hard to come by. We are not carnivores however and do require vegetables and fruits in combination with MEAT to live HEALTHY (not just surviving).

I expect you all should be familiar with scurvy? yeah, well it would have been just as bad 100,000 years ago… Read the real stuff on the paleo diet: look for papers by Boyd Eaton and Loren Cordain. It isn’t a fad diet either, though it is being treated as such, just good science.

You know that Flameout they sell here? Yeah, well getting your omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acid balance corrected is part of the paleo diet and that’s what Flameout does. Also balancing out the massive sodium/potassium imbalances that a modern refined diet engenders.

http://www.efph.purdue.edu/media/publication/CordainAJCNFebr2005Final.pdf

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/2006_Oxford.pdf

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Origins%20Paper%20Final.pdf

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Hunter%20Gatherer%20Mayo%20Letter.pdf

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/J%20Nutr%20Environ%20Med%202003.pdf

and more at: http://www.thepaleodiet.com/published_research/

76

good posts max manus and yes I was talking about our very distant, tiny, ancestors. Mainly because I think that everytime the eat-only-meat diets pop up and talk about cavemen, I suspect everyone is having glorified images of us as hulking hairy monstrousity of muscle chowing down on a mammoth, if not, a dinosaur.

I thought the DNA question of neanderthals was resolved already … and that there was no inter breeding. (of course we both come from the same roots way back)

what about the tiny people discovered recently in indonesia, very interesting. Also saw reports this week of yeti-bigfoot type people roaming north inda. could be fabricated of course.

Anyway I hope what people realise from all this is that people just are not the same, and you must experiment to find what works for you, best. I haven’t got anything against paleo diet in particular or a mainly meat diet. I only take issue with people who adopt one diet then force it on everyone else, vegans tend to be extra annoying in this department.

77

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
…
I thought grains were a more recent food. I read somewhere that arab nations acan tolerate grains better as they have been using them for much longer. Fruit is better suited to peop-le colser to the equator.

I see some sense in starting out with what was suited to you based on ancestors, then like you said see how you feel after eating certain foods. And of course avoid the obvious crap processed food.

Grains have been domesticated at least 10,000 years starting in Mesopotamia.

Wild grains have been consumed much, much longer than that.

[/quote]

This is what I thought. Which are the wild grains and who ate them? Where do you learn this stuff? I’m due for some more knowledge on the subject.

I need more info.

78

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
…
I thought grains were a more recent food. I read somewhere that arab nations acan tolerate grains better as they have been using them for much longer. Fruit is better suited to peop-le colser to the equator.

I see some sense in starting out with what was suited to you based on ancestors, then like you said see how you feel after eating certain foods. And of course avoid the obvious crap processed food.

Grains have been domesticated at least 10,000 years starting in Mesopotamia.

Wild grains have been consumed much, much longer than that.

This is what I thought. Which are the wild grains and who ate them? Where do you learn this stuff? I’m due for some more knowledge on the subject.

I need more info.[/quote]

There are a bunch of articles and books but the easiest book I have read is Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. I don’t agree with all his conclusions but it is a great book.

79

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
…
I thought grains were a more recent food. I read somewhere that arab nations acan tolerate grains better as they have been using them for much longer. Fruit is better suited to peop-le colser to the equator.

I see some sense in starting out with what was suited to you based on ancestors, then like you said see how you feel after eating certain foods. And of course avoid the obvious crap processed food.

Grains have been domesticated at least 10,000 years starting in Mesopotamia.

Wild grains have been consumed much, much longer than that.

This is what I thought. Which are the wild grains and who ate them? Where do you learn this stuff? I’m due for some more knowledge on the subject.

I need more info.

There are a bunch of articles and books but the easiest book I have read is Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. I don’t agree with all his conclusions but it is a great book.[/quote]

Cheers, I’ll have a look for it.

Have you read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A Price? I think I’ll have a look at that one also.