Chapter 20: Eating ‘Properly’

 

The last chapter intimated that the solution to the problem of the overweight and obese members of the population was ‘waiting in the wings’ biding its time, from a population perspective. But if an individual wanted the information on the triumvirate of food, exercise and mental ‘strength’, how or where would they get it? As mentioned before, we need to look to the Paleolithic era because that is where our genes have evolved to be! So, I would like to put forward a theory, and that is all it is, on what to eat and how to cook it. Needless to say it is not a coincidence that it is (very) similar to what I use!

 

 

More than 70% of the total daily energy consumed by all people in the United States comes from foods such as dairy products, cereals, refined sugars, refined vegetable oils and alcohol, that advocates of the Paleolithic diet assert contributed little or none of the energy in the typical preagricultural hominin diet. Proponents of this diet argue that excessive consumption of these novel Neolithic and Industrial era foods is responsible for the current epidemic levels of obesity, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis and cancer in the US and other contemporary Western populations. (Wikipedia, Paleolithic diet, Rationale and evolutionary assumptions)

 

In the last chapter, an attempt was made to indicate the enormous variety of foods that gatherers ate, coupled with the basic rationale to broaden the range of foods from as many niche environments as possible as a means of ensuring a food supply at all times. In a modern society, living in towns with limited time to hunt and gather, what, when and how do we eat?

 

The simplest question to examine is the question of ‘when’ to eat. It is generally accepted that we should have three meals a day, with or without snacks. However, one of the major aims of modern living is to reduce the time devoted to hunting and gathering. Taking this trend even further, we should reduce the time for eating and this is happening through the increased consumption of take-aways. Often workers especially, leave home without breakfast, catch some snacks during the day and don’t have the energy to cook properly when they arrive home. This trend is exacerbated when both parents work, and take-aways are often eaten.

 

Add to this the tendency for processors to process our food, which for wheat based foods is to remove the wheat germ and grind the resulting starch as finely as possible so that the bread etc is as ‘light’ as possible, which makes the starch able to be absorbed (as sugars) quickly which leads to insulin problems as the sugars in the bloodstream quickly peak and then subside. I could go on and on about modern processing, but a ‘sea-change’ in thinking is necessary, and simply, that is to use the natural processors of our food that we have been using for millions of years and have evolved to use. The answer is seeds and nuts, but the difference is that the modern processor is trying to use the cheapest ingredients, whilst the plant is ‘packing’ the seed with the best that it can produce to give its offspring the best chance of success. This simple idea should be held in mind when thinking of ordering take-aways!

 

postscript: This is a good place to point out that we are actually ‘sorting’ attractors to get the best outcome that we can, and the simplicity of the above paragraph in pushing us toward or away from take-aways (or not take-aways) can then be compared with a further step, quoted below, on the importance of anti-oxidants. We are using the Mathematics of the Mind to set up attractors, compare them, realize that there is not a unique solution and use the mind to determine the answer to the question ‘What’s for lunch?’. The ‘default’ solution is the one supplied by evolution, and that is to ‘eat naturally’ as we would in the Paleolithic era. Unfortunately, the mind then has to ask another question, ‘How to catch it?’, and so on, and so on.

 

‘There are more than 200 studies showing that those who eat the most fruit and vegetables have the lowest levels of cancer at almost every site in the body. This protection does not come from the vitamins in these foods, or from the fibre. Researchers now believe the carotenoids (other than beta carotine) and other substances in plant foods may be responsible for the protection. (Vitamins: what they do and what they don’t do, Rosemary Stanton, p 202)

 

Only two meals a day are necessary. One before we go out hunting, gathering, working etc and one when we arrive back with the ‘goodies’. One is breakfast, the other is dinner at night. In our modern world, breakfast before leaving for work and dinner when arriving home. If absolutely necessary, pack a lunch. The secret is to ‘do it like we were designed to do it’. The food should be ground by our teeth or in a blender, not ground super-finely in modern mills. Dinner is the fresh food that was hunted and gathered during the day, breakfast is composed of stored and dried foods. In other words, breakfast is all the nuts, seeds and dried and fresh fruits around the cave or kitchen and they can be used to last throughout the day using the methods above.

 

This breakfast is commonly called muesli, and has the positive side that it is mainly eaten raw. It is a little daunting to be faced with whole nuts, fine seed and in between. The answer is to use a blender that reduces everything to a finely ground, but not too finely ground palatable ‘flour’. Because this ‘flour’ is both finely and coarsely ground, it takes a long time to digest fully. So, the problem of only having two meals and that those meals be sufficiently long-lasting is solved!

 

How to eat has been indicated for one meal, as above, and it has been outlined in the two ‘rat’ experiments in a previous chapter, there is the second, evening meal that has a different ‘base’. Fire has been used regularly for (at least) 400,000 years, and that period is long enough that it has influenced our genes to reduce our teeth size. Consider the following.

 

‘Early humans cooked up their first hot meals more than 1.9m years ago, long before our ancient ancestors left Africa to colonise the world, scientists claim.

 

Researchers at Harvard University traced the origins of cooking back through the human family tree after studying tooth sizes and the feeding behaviour of monkeys, apes and modern humans.

 

They concluded that cooking was commonplace among Homo erectus, our flat‑faced, thick‑browed forebears, and probably originated early in that species’ reign, if not before in more primitive humans. “This is part of an emerging body of science that shows cooking itself is important for our biology; that is, we are biologically adapted for cooking food,” said Chris Organ, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard.

 

The advent of cooking was one of the most crucial episodes in the human story, allowing our ancestors to broaden their diet and extract more calories from their food. Because it softened food, it also spelled an end to the days of endless chewing. There has been disagreement among experts on the issue. Some of the most convincing evidence for human use of fire is more recent, dating to around 400,000 years ago, though older claims exist, including the remnants of a campfire in Israel that dates back to 790,000 years ago.

 

The researchers began by creating an evolutionary tree of monkeys, apes and modern humans. On to this they added information on how long various species spent feeding. Compared with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, humans spent remarkably little time eating. Chimps typically spent more than one third of their day feeding, while for humans it was about 5% of their waking hours.

 

The scientists then added information on tooth sizes to the family tree, and this time they included details of extinct human ancestors and closely related species.

 

The study showed that three species of humans, Homo erectus, Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis), and modern humans (Homo sapiens), evolved small molars relatively quickly, which could not be explained by general changes in head and jaw sizes.

 

Instead, the scientists believe the invention of cooking could explain the changes in both tooth size and feeding times. As early humans learned how to cook, they no longer needed large back teeth to chew tough food, or had to spend hours chewing to gain enough calories. Over time, large teeth disappeared from our ancestors, to be replaced with far smaller ones.

 

According to their report in the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Homo erectus, which emerged in Africa around 1.9m years ago, spent 6.1% of its time eating. Neanderthals, the authors claim, spent 7% of their time feeding. “We think that Homo erectus and Neanderthals were spending about as much of their day feeding as we do, which implies that they were both cooking,” Organ said.’ (The Guardian, Tuesday 23 August 2011)

 

So, from the above, it appears that one key to our success is to reduce our feeding time, and that is the direction that I am advocating with fewer meals and snacks. Also, as one who has teeth that are inclined to decay readily, the regime of two meals and no snacks allows me to brush my teeth after eating and be comfortable in the knowledge that I cannot do better for my teeth. It is hard to believe that when I was young I was told that by the time that people were 30 years of age, the current situation was for them to probably have dentures! Thankfully, I have avoided that by changing my diet away from sugars and starches.

 

The use of fire to cook food has reduced tooth and jaw size in humans and has also resulted in making nutrients more available. Whilst we have become genetically dependant on fire to release nutrients from food, fire has had a great impact on our social lives in protection from wild animals and as a gathering point for social interaction. In fact, the usefulness of fire is (probably) part of our psyche as mentioned before, and is probably being used to manipulate patrons of clubs towards gambling areas.

 

One example, of many, in this regard is the question of calcium intake that has formed a large part of the dairy industry’s advertising. They intimate that dairy products are necessary for healthy bones. As a vegetarian, I have always wondered why we should eat dairy products when cows get and retain so much calcium from a diet of grass. Also, I have always been a bit dubious about the acid/alkaline effect of meat versus vegetables, so I would like to present the following quotation that categorizes meat, fish, cheese and grains as acid producing whilst fruits and vegetables are alkaline. Note particularly that grains, which one would have thought to be included in fruits and vegetables are classed with meat etc. Osteoporosis is widespread in modern life, and yet the following quotation indicates that a little meat and fish and low levels of grains, with no dairy aligns well with the Paleolithic diet

 

‘Foods which cause a net acid excretion include meat, fish, cheeses and grains (Remer T, et al. Potential renal acid loads of foods and its influence on urine pH. J Am Diet Assoc. 1995 Jul; 95: 791‑97). Fruits and vegetables have a net alkaline value and consequently reduce acid excretion and hence reduce calciuria thereby halting bone resorption and actually allowing bone accretion to occur.

 

Although the dietary calcium to protein ration in stone age diets would have been quite low, the large amount of fruits and vegetables (35% of total energy) included in the diet would have produced a net dietary acid‑base status which would have favored bone accretion even in the face of enormous protein intakes.’ (An Interview with Loren Cordain, PhD, by Robert Crayhon, MS

Reprinted by permission from Life Services)

 

A little more information might be worthwhile because of the importance of deciding whether to eat a modern diet versus a Paleolithic diet. ‘A disturbance of the acid‑base balance occurs when acid‑base changes surpass the body’s ability to regulate it, or when normal regulatory mechanisms become ineffective. This can happen with chronic consumption of an acidic diet.

 

Health problems

If pH levels aren’t balanced, this can mean negative health outcomes that include:

 

• Decreased growth factors
• Growth hormone resistance
• Mild hypothyroidism
• Higher levels of blood cortisol
• Loss of muscle mass
• Enzymatic changes in cells
• Altered regulation of metabolites and minerals
• Decreased uptake and release of oxygen

“Borrowing” buffers

Why do these health problems occur?

 

One reason is that in order to counteract high acid loads in the diet, the body looks for buffering substances, such as minerals and proteins. It often has to “borrow” these from elsewhere.

 

For example, the body can use calcium and phosphorus to buffer acid loads. Where’s the biggest stockpile of these minerals in the body? Your bones.

 

One of the primary causes of osteoporosis is the loss of calcium from bones to buffer acid loads in the body, not lack of dietary calcium. The United States, Finland, England, Israel and Sweden have the highest intake of calcium from dairy, yet they also have the highest rates of osteoporosis.’ (Precision Nutrition: All About Dietary Acids and Bases, Ryan Andrews, 11/5/2009)

 

The quotations above, indicate what is wrong with take-away ‘fast’ food. The original ‘fast’ food, in modern life, was ‘hot potato chips’, which combined the original (addictive in nature) fat, starch and salt. This fast food is easy to understand because it combines the three ‘foods’ that are hard to get in nature. Firstly, salt: ‘many animals regularly visit mineral licks to consume clay, supplementing their diet with nutrients and minerals. Some animals require the minerals at these sites not for nutrition, but to ward off the effects of secondary compounds that are included in the arsenal of plant defences against herbivory. The mineral contents of these sites usually contain calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S) phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and sodium (Na). Mineral lick sites play a critical role in the ecology and diversity of organisms that visit these sites, however, little is still understood about the dietary benefits.’ (Wikipedia, Mineral lick, Overview)

Secondly, as mentioned above, vegetables were (effectively) herbs because they had not been ‘developed ‘ to produce large quantities of starch etc. Thirdly, animals were lean, without excess fat because of competition.

 

But, another popular take-away includes sandwiches, rolls, wraps, pies etc which all come packaged in a grain covering. The grain covering keeps everything together and provides a dry surface to hold. A great idea! But, meat, cheese and the grains are all acid, which brings on the problems listed above. Also, another class of take-away (at least in the developed world) is Chinese food with the inevitable white rice, high meat and low vegetable content.

 

‘Our mouths, teeth, jaws and stomachs all indicate that humans are not adapted to eating lump of raw meat … The problem is that tropical hunter-gatherers have to eat at least half of their diet in the form of plants, and the kinds of plant foods our hunter-gatherer would have relied on are not easily digested raw. Plants are a vital food because humans need large amounts of either carbohydrates (from plant foods) or fat (found in a few animal foods). Without carbohydrates or fat, people depend on protein for their energy, and excessive protein induces a form of poisoning.’ (Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, Richard Wrangham, p 47)

 

‘Because the maximum safe level of protein intake for humans is around 50 percent of total calories, the rest must come from fat, such as blubber, or carbohydrates, such as in fruits and roots. Fat is an excellent source of calories in high latitude sites like the arctic or Tierra del Fuego, where sea mammals have evolved thick layers of blubber to protect themselves from the cold. However, fat levels are much lower in the meat of tropical mammals, averaging around 4 percent, and high-fat tissues like marrow and brain are always in limited supply. The critical extra calories for our equatorial ancestors therefore must have come from plants, which are vital for all tropical hunter-gatherers.’ (p 48)

 

One point of interest is that ‘people with an anatomy like ours could not have flourished on raw food in the Pleistocene epoch’ (p 49) and secondly, given the above, many people eat large quantities of meat without protein poisoning, and that is because modern farming methods are designed to make meat ‘fatty’ to tenderize it. In fact, laws are in place restricting the amount of fat in ‘minced’ meat. ‘”Minced”, used in relation to meat of any permitted species and containing pig meat <=30% fat content.’ (Scottish Food Enforcement Liaison Committee) Bovine <= 20% and sheepmeat or goat meat <=25%.

 

In the above, we have looked at when to eat, and how to eat, in perhaps a negative sense, and it is now time to look at what to eat. This is not easy because we do not have the time to pick it fresh, nor do we have access to the variety mentioned in the previous chapter. Several patterns have been proposed, and now the time has come to draw them together. Firstly, the theory, and it is only a theory, suggests that we should intake a wide variety of foods because we have used multi-niches as a means of safeguarding our existence.

 

Secondly, as noted in Mineral licks, animals, including ourselves, ‘know’ what their bodies’ need. This is the eighth sense. This sense is very old and has been in place since bacteria needed to find the food that they needed efficiently, after all, if the required nutrients are not ‘balanced’ for the body’s requirements, the organism is not efficient and will die out. Our mind will tell us what to eat if given the chance and we will eat those foods in preference. Thus, given a wide range of available foods, our brain should select those that we need. But, our brain must be given the chance to select the ratio, and it can only do this if it has experience with the range of foods! Modern eating uses a restricted number of foods and this restricts the eighth sense of modern people and they eat to excess whilst chasing nutrients. As an example, it is well known that pregnant women often get a ‘craving’ for some unusual food and this is probably because her body is requiring certain nutrients at certain times and the mind is forcing her to eat them. But, a ‘naive’ mind might demand a less suitable source of food be eaten which might lead to too much sugar etc being consumed.

 

Thirdly, the ‘rat experiments’ described earlier suggest two types of meals, a breakfast and an evening meal with the proviso of 30 nuts, seeds and fruits in the morning and 30 vegetable, herbs and spices in the evening. The ratio of amounts of each variety depends on personal selection, and depends on a ‘feeling’ of their ‘worth’ to the body for the existing conditions by the conditions changing the thinking of the animal or person. So, what can we do to reclaim our knowledge of the foods that are available to us when our diet has traditionally been restricted by modern life.

 

The first step in determining the foods that could be within our multi-niches is to determine from what part of the world we evolved. Several waves of proto-humans migrated out of Africa and subsequently died out, however, ‘it has been known for some time that the Ancestor population went through a genetic bottleneck, in which populations must have dwindled, with later population growth after 50 thousand years ago… For the people who made it through the bottleneck, whether volcanically induced or not, life on the Indian savannahs would have allowed rapid demographic growth which would, in turn, have triggered geographical expansion.’ (The Humans Who Went Extinct, Clive Finlayson, pp 99-100)

 

Clearly, the present-day European people spent time in India with progressive migration into Europe and Great Britain, and this is the area (India to Ireland) that interests me and the foods that can be found in that area. It is not difficult to list 30 nuts, seeds and fruits from that area, and it is not difficult to list 30 vegetables, herbs and spices also from that area. The list is not exclusive, by any means, but it is better than the number of foods currently consumed in society. Remember that high starch cereals such as wheat and rice are not included, nor potatoes, pumpkin, sweet potatoes, milk and other ‘developed’ foods.

 

If the hunted and gathered food, which suited our genes, was so superior, why did the Neolithic farmers win-out? ‘We may have an example of Ancestors swamping or out-competing others of their own kind, not because they were better or more intelligent but because circumstances had given them a way of life that generated more numbers. Later in history, farmers would swamp-out hunter-gatherers from many parts of the world in a similar fashion.’ (p 182)