Wonder White Bread Vs Brown Bread.

[gravy]

And about the whole grass thing, yeah, grass isn't food for humans. So what's your point?

[Kevin Conley]

lmfao. note to self, ignore everything this guy has to say.

 

as for josh:

so what? some humans eat a bunch of crap. does that mean we did not evolve to eat the processed foods? because to me, it seems like humans digest these nutrient deficient foods just fine. sure, for most (sedentary) people it gets stored as fat, and in some cases cause health issues. but this does not mean that we evolved to eat one type of food over another.  if humans eat processed/junk foods a few times a year does this mean they'll die automatically or have long term health issues because they did not evolve to digest the processed foods? no. eating garbage regularly is similar to not exercising regularly. humans are not "meant" to have one kind of food over another. humans eat whatever is available, and sometimes humans make extremely stupid decisions.

 

let's take an extreme situation for example: if nutrient deficient foods (like processed/junk food) were available and humans were starving, the humans that had access to these foods would have a higher survival rate as opposed to those who only had access to mud, grass, and rocks as food. does this mean that humans are evolutionarily adapted to junk food, but not mud, grass, and rocks? hell no. humans are adapted to be generalists. (in the first world) humans can make decisions that determine their health. some make "healthy" decisions, some make trashy ones. the whole evolved to eat x instead of y argument is a huge marketing ploy for the paleo diet. choose what you put into your body, and do what you will. but don't make the claim that humans evolved to eat this or that. that's totally BS and not supported by any evidence. open a genetics book.

 

Lmao. Clearly, he has not read current literature. The processed food of today is not equvalent to the "junk" food of starving people in paleolitic times, or anyone else in the jungle (or where ever). The junk food of today including all that sugar will throw your hormones out of whack and lead to chronic diseases.

 

And if it was a problem of eating crap every once and a while...the world wouldn't be facing obesity.

 

Further, of course we can't give a list of foods humans evolved to eat, because we have no written record. I am sure that is one of your points. However, there is a study done in 2000 looking at indiginous tribes who have no modern processed foods. 0% were vegetarian, and 85% of their food came from meat, fish, and bird products. 15% from wild vegetables and fruit. No, we didn't evolve to eat A VERY SPECIFIC set of foods, but people around the world eat foods that give them the essential nutients. We can see they do given the low incidence of chronic diseases in these indiginous peoples. For example, they do not have dislipidema (abnormal lipid profiles like super high triglycerides) because their fat hormones are disregulated (occuring because of grains and sugar). Clearly people CAN eat grains and sugar and survive. But it will cause a disregulation in fat metabolism. Also, before you go on talking about how people just need to move more show me reserach that proves exercise helps you lose weight...since research has proven again and again EXERCISE DOES NOT HELP YOU LOSE WEIGHT. If you want sources, just ask. I can give them.

 

I am a big believer in exercise changing body composition, but weight, no.

 

Do some literature review please.

[gravy]

Absolute bullshit.

 

We are designed to be able to stay alive and reproduce, and we are designed to be able to develop a wide variety of cognitive and motor abilities. We are designed with the capacity to experience emotion, and to be able to display self-control in a wide variety of situations. We are designed to be self-aware. These are all facts.

 

If we weren't designed to need a lot of chemicals from food sources in nature, we wouldn't die from a wide variety of mineral and/or vitamin deficiencies. If we weren't designed to eat a bunch of plants, the chemicals that we exclusively find in them would not improve our resistance to chronic diseases like cancer the way they do. If what we ate didn't matter, if there weren't a bunch of foods that we were meant to eat, we would NOT be seeing all of the health problems that we see in today's world as a result of a completely different diet. 

 

 

Design does not mean some digital geneticist in the sky created us to be this way. It means that we have specific molecular machinery in place, and that it absolutely DOES require those chemicals to function at it's best. In many ways, the human machine breaks down prematurely in a HUGE variety of ways when it doesn't get them. That's why we take f-ing Flintstone Vitamins, dude. 

 

Try to keep some perspective.

  Disregarding the whole "design"/"machine" thing:

 

You even said so yourself- humans evolved to have nutrient requirements. A person that is extremely below these requirements or extremely above these requirements will undoubtedly have issues. This still does not mean that humans evolved to eat certain foods and not eat other foods. People are just ignorant and don't employ moderation. One hamburger patty never killed anyone.

Nutrients are not the same thing as food. I think that this is an important distinction to make and is not nit-picky. A vegetable is not a nutrient.

[Kevin Conley]

I think you are missing the point gravy............

[Travis Widmann]

Absolute bullshit.

 

We are designed to be able to stay alive and reproduce, and we are designed to be able to develop a wide variety of cognitive and motor abilities. We are designed with the capacity to experience emotion, and to be able to display self-control in a wide variety of situations. We are designed to be self-aware. These are all facts.

Josh, I agree with most things you're saying in this thread and probably my only issue is with semantics. But I don't think those semantics are pointless at all. Obviously we can observe that we have the ability to stay alive and reproduce, etc., and even feel compelled to do these things. However I can't follow you from those observable facts and underlying structure to claims about designs. Like it or not design implies designer. Design implies a plan. And when anyone starts saying that so-and-so is what humans are meant to do or supposed to do I feel forced to resist.

 

So yeah, it's semantics, but in my my mind semantics aren't necessarily a waste of time. I concede to you on all matters of specific nutrition, Josh, but casting "bullshit" around is not helping your argument here.

 

Gravy, you're right that we can't provide a positive list of specific foods we are definitively biologically adapted to consume because it's all speculation and our missing link ancestors didn't seem to be keeping track. All I can say is if those foods which are most conducive to our good health are natural things which have been in existence in various forms for millions of years and which all manner of creatures consume (and provide), then I'm going to make a wild guess that it's not because of coincidence but the result of specific adaptations that they work so well, and that other food types are deleterious to our health because of a lack of specific adaptations. Maybe that's wrong. I don't pretend it's hard science.

 

That's my say. The original question was answered and now the discussion's devolved into derision and condescension.

[Colin Macdonald]

That's my say. The original question was answered and now the discussion's devolved into derision and condescension.

How odd for such a thing to happen on the internet. 

 

But you're right, this clearly isn't getting anywhere.

[Michael Pinto]

And about the whole grass thing, yeah, grass isn't food for humans. So what's your point?

Isn't that the entire point? Grass can be considered a food to some creatures that evolved to eat it. We did not evolve to eat grass. Ergo grass is a food we evolved to not be able to eat

[Guest SuperBru]

I believe things might be getting just a little bit off topic.    

[Jon Douglas]

Times like these guys, ask yourselves the important questions

 

[Joshua Naterman]

I never said pointless, and nutrients are absolutely food. They are the components of nutrition, and comprise macronutrients (or energy sources) as well as water and micronutrients.

 

I never mentioned any specific type of food, I mentioned a classification. Maybe you need the term "processed food" spelled out, but it is foods that have been altered by processing to the point where their nutritional profile and/or nutritive effect(s) no longer mirrors the original food.

 

I don't know why you threw hamburgers in there, because not only were they not mentioned... they wouldn't meet the definition of a processed food. The only thing is different is whether or not you have ground the meat. You aren't removing parts of it, bleaching parts of it, or doing anything else. It's still raw meat, with all the parts intact. On the other hand, pretty much everything that is pre-baked, bleached, enriched, etc etc, does.

 

Most specifically, the majority of the foods that comprise the modern "Western" or "American" diet, as it is referred to, are virtually devoid of intact vegetable matter, and what is there tends to be pasteurized, get microwaved, or both. All of these processes significantly alter the foods.

 

I also don't remember religion being anyone's focused.

 

So I have a question: Why are you trolling this thread?

[Nic Branson]

Keep it to a conversation in here and be respectful.

[Joshua Naterman]

 

When one says something is designed for something, like say "the operating engine" (noun 1) is designed for "full synthetic oil" (noun 2), because its viscous and combustive properties and composition allow it to properly protect the engine from metal on metal contact (noun 4). Will "natural oil" (noun 3) perform the same task? No, because it cannot perform to the same standard as full synthetic oil (noun 2). The [viscous] properties and composition of natural oil (noun 3) are different than synthetic oil (noun 2), as are their combustion properties (explanation of properties). As both of these properties are directly related to both how the oil functions as a lubricant in a specific environment (pressure and heat) AND how the oil behaves in a hot environment that contains oxygen, the natural oil (noun 3) will not be able to properly protect the operating engine (noun 1) from damage (that's the explanation), and the operating engine (noun 1) is not properly protected by natural oil (noun 3) against "metal on metal contact" (noun 4), leading to "premature engine failure" (Noun 5). This shows why the operating engine (noun 1) is not designed for natural oil (noun 3) and why full synthetic oil (noun 2) is what the engine is designed for.

 

The simplified logos is thus: 

 

Noun 1 is designed for Noun 2, because the properties and composition of Noun 2 protect it from Noun 4. Will Noun 3 perform the same task? No, Noun 3 cannot perform to an equal standard as Noun 2.  Because Noun 3, which has properties and composition that are NOT identical to Noun 2 (include explanation if desired), Noun 1 will not receive the proper protection from Noun 3 against Noun 4, leading to noun 5. This shows why Noun 1 is not designed for Noun 3, and why Noun 2 is what Noun 1 is designed for.

 

Now for something directly related:

 

"The human body" (Noun 1) is designed for "whole foods" (Noun 2), because the properties and composition of whole foods (Noun 2) protect it from "cancer, cellular aging, heart disease, osteoporosis, compromised immune system, nutritional deficiencies, oxidative damage, and so on"  (Noun 4... you can just use one at a time if you like). Will "processed foods" (Noun 3) perform the same task? No, processed foods (Noun 3) cannot perform to an equal standard as whole foods (Noun 2).  Because processed foods (Noun 3), which have properties and composition that are NOT identical to Noun 2, as they do not contain even 10% of the total chemicals (vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, etc) that are known to either have direct protective effects against Noun 4 OR that are known to enhance the effect of the suspected biologically relevant chemical's protective effect against Noun 4 , or have them in similar dosages and ratios (explanation), the human body "Noun 1" will not receive the same degree of protection from processed foods (Noun 3) against Noun 4, leading to "higher rates of chronic disease and premature death" (noun 5). This shows why the human body (Noun 1) is not designed for processed foods (Noun 3), and why whole food (Noun 2) is what the human body (Noun 1) is designed for.

 

Huh.. strange... all I had to do was to plug in different nouns, and an appropriate (and scientifically valid) explanation, and the logic held. 

 

You can run a car on olive oil for a little while, but it's not going to work the way it is supposed to. The same goes for your body and processed foods.

 

We can make the same exact logical framework for both why a car must be driven every so often in order to function properly, and also why the human body must perform regular physical labor (exercise, etc) to maintain proper function.

 

When the logic holds true one way (in favor of body being designed for whole foods), but not the other (in favor of the body faring equally well regardless of whole food or processed food), it should be very very clear that whatever point you are trying to make is not in favor of the body NOT being designed for whole foods. You may have a crusade against religious beliefs, or you may have hot ears because you constructed a poor argument, but you don't have a valid case to make in the area of "the human body is equally designed for whole and processed foods."

 

I have worked in cardiac rehab every day for 11 weeks dude, and I watch people get in better shape, lose risk factors, come off of medications, and make much better improvements in subjective AND objective health and life satisfaction measures, and the single variable is when they finally start applying what the R.D. tells them to do. 

 

If we weren't designed to eat whole foods, most of these cool chemicals that the drug companies pay people so much money to manufacture industrially wouldn't be found in foods. We wouldn't see people on true whole food diets fare significantly better in just about every single way vs. a pure processed food diet. 

[Jake Lawrance]

Back to bread We shouldn't be eating bread anyway? 

 

Obviously we have the whole gluten problem. <-- Commonly known subject.

 

Then we have the phytic acid problem. <-- It's getting out there slowly but surely. Plants all have phosphates for the sake of storage, for this they use phytic acid to chelate with iron, zinc and on a smaller scale, calcium and magnesium. This will happen in your digestive tract, and then because phytic acid is indigestible by humans, we don't get to consume our zinc, iron, calcium and magnesium as much as we should. These deficiencies in the long term have horrendous effects, such as ataxia, anaemia etc etc. 

 

Forget bread altogether Unless it's cheat day, mmmmm, toast.

[FREDERIC DUPONT]

(...) we have the whole gluten problem. (...)

As long as you spread overly generous amounts of butter on the bread, gluten becomes a secondary problem.

[Colin Macdonald]

Then we have the phytic acid problem. 

Eat sourdough. The extended fermentation and ph level breaks down the phytic acid apparently.

[Guest SuperBru]

So I shouldn't eat bread at all? I don't like it that much so eliminating it from my diet will be a piece of cake.

[Jake Lawrance]

Haha yes, adding butter will totally help

 

I'd still avoid all types of bread, maybe sourdough for cheats. Does sourdough have yeast in it still? I used to have a yeast infection while my Dad still does as he has about half a loaf a day (awful) <-- Just had a massive cheat day after reading the 4 hour body cheat day thing by Tim Ferris. Feel sick and forcing all processed foods in my head so it reminds me of this day! 

 

Yes if we are to follow the paleo diet or rather more, it's background, you would be avoiding all grains (pasta, bread, rice, cereals, you name it), although I do allow for brown germinated rice and quinoa occasionally if I'm doing a triple day

 

Also, I found an interesting link to as why our government scams us and kills us slowly through processed/grain foods!  I thank Daniel Spencer of GMB for sharing. http://www.gnolls.org/2199/you-are-a-radical-and-so-am-i-paleo-reaches-the-ominous-stage-3/ <-- VERY interesting and worrying. It'll keep you safe from the media, that's for sure!

 

Edit: Don't be 'carb-less', still eat some low glycaemic index/fructose fruits as well! Big carbs like rice should be kept for supplementing a tough regime, although this is through my OWN experience and my own opinion. It works for me

[FREDERIC DUPONT]

From the above link:

"Simply by eating a paleo diet, we have made ourselves enemies of the establishment, and will be treated henceforth as dangerous radicals."

 

That sentence Instantly converted me to Paleo

[Jake Lawrance]

From the above link:

"Simply by eating a paleo diet, we have made ourselves enemies of the establishment, and will be treated henceforth as dangerous radicals."

 

That sentence Instantly converted me to Paleo

Haha, who doesn't want to be a dangerous radical anyway?!

[Travis Widmann]

 

 

 but you don't have a valid case to make in the area of "the human body is equally designed for whole and processed foods."

Josh, I never tried to make this argument. You invented that part yourself. And I'm not trying to peddle an anti-religious agenda. What I'm saying is simply that, if we're talking about evolution, we should use accurate terms. I think "well adapted to" or even just "adapted to" is a much more accurate phrase than "designed to" because the word "design" includes in its definition the idea of a plan and a purpose and often a willful intent towards some specific goal. You can find that in a dictionary. Many evolutionary biologists and others prefer to avoid the word "design" because evolution as understood in purely scientific terms has no end purpose and follows no schematic. It's a small but important distinction.

 

That said, I agree that we are much better adapted to eating whole foods than processed foods. However, because you can put different nouns in the same places of two very different scenarios does not convince me of what you call "direct relation" between those scenarios.

 

 

 

So I shouldn't eat bread at all? I don't like it that much so eliminating it from my diet will be a piece of cake.

Some people think so. It's up to you how rigid you want to be with your nutrition. I eat bread more rarely now almost incidentally, because I'm eating so many vegetables all the time. But I still have a slice with peanut butter every now and then, usually as a snack sometime before working out.

 

Though dangerous radicalism sounds like a lot of fun.

[Guest SuperBru]

If theres one thing that i've learnt about this planet we call Earth it's that you can't trust anybody.

[Colin Macdonald]

So I shouldn't eat bread at all? I don't like it that much so eliminating it from my diet will be a piece of cake.

If you don't like it, there's no reason why you need to include it in your diet.

 

Personally, I just eat wheat in moderation a few times a week.

 

Haha yes, adding butter will totally help

 

I'd still avoid all types of bread, maybe sourdough for cheats. Does sourdough have yeast in it still? I used to have a yeast infection while my Dad still does as he has about half a loaf a day (awful) 

Yes sourdough has yeast, it's just wild yeast that's collected from the environment where it was fermented as opposed to commercial yeast that has been purchased. In addition they include other healthy bacteria that creates acid that causes the sour taste, similar to the ones found in yogurt (and it also prevents nasty, toxic microbes from infecting the dough).

 

I doubt your dad is getting yeast infections from bread. They all die when they get baked. Yeast is everywhere around us all the time, it's problems with our bodies that allow yeast to take hold and multiply that causes infections. In fact, it's quite possible that eating foods with more live bacteria will help prevent the infections.

 

Many evolutionary biologists and others prefer to avoid the word "design" because evolution as understood in purely scientific terms has no end purpose and follows no schematic. It's a small but important distinction.

I think it depends what angle you're coming at the problem from. In the context of evolution I think those terms are absolutely correct. But in a medical context, like where Josh comes from, I think you tend to talk to patients in more concrete terms of what their body needs.

 

Really? I strongly disagree.

Phytates are actually good for us;

I don't think it's that clear cut. It seems that range of chemicals (phylates, phenols) can cut both ways in terms of health effects. While a certain amount may be healthy, an excess amount is certainly going to be problematic. Historically, groups that have consumed a majority of their calories from whole grains have had severe mineral deficiencies. If its just a small part of your diet, you'll probably avoid most of the negatives. Interestingly, the positive effects from these chemicals may actually be a hormetic response. So moderate doses would be healthy, but high doses would be toxic.

 

Which is just another example of the advantage of a balanced whole food diet without supplements.

[Jake Lawrance]

 

I don't think it's that clear cut. It seems that range of chemicals (phylates, phenols) can cut both ways in terms of health effects. While a certain amount may be healthy, an excess amount is certainly going to be problematic. Historically, groups that have consumed a majority of their calories from whole grains have had severe mineral deficiencies. If its just a small part of your diet, you'll probably avoid most of the negatives. Interestingly, the positive effects from these chemicals may actually be a hormetic response. So moderate doses would be healthy, but high doses would be toxic.

 

Which is just another example of the advantage of a balanced whole food diet without supplements.

 

 

    I agree, it's definitely not clear. Besides there's a low chance we'd be able to out rule how our ancestors ate. Of course, we can still consume phytates and what not, but there's better options. I believe some variation of potatoes contain phytates. I also believe quinoa may also contain some. However, there is no way it is healthy to be eating phytates regularly and daily. <-- I didn't say unhealthy

[Jake Lawrance]

Besides, if you're eating only real foods, you're preventing the chances of cancer development anyway!