It's Evolution Baby!

'Out Of Africa' Theory Boost: Skull Dating Suggests Modern Humans Evolved In Africa
Earliest Evidence Of Modern Humans In Europe Discovered: Artifacts May Date Back 45,000 Years

I came across these two articles on Science Daily yesterday. One deals with the dating of a human skull found outside Cape Town, South Africa from about 36,000 years ago. It supports the theory that humans evolved in Africa, then moved out into the Fertile Crescent (modern day Middle East), the Near East, Europe, and then on into Siberia and Australia before crossing the land-bridge into Alaska and populating The Americas.

The other article deals with artifacts dated found south of Moscow dated to 45,000 years ago. This is thought to be the earliest evidence of humans in Europe. Artifacts include bone and ivory needles with eyelets, blades, scrapers, and other tools. Also discovered were the remains of large and small animals, including mammoths, horse, bison, and either fish, bird, or both. Interesting stuff!

Snackers Likely To Eat More Low Fat Food

Snackers Likely To Eat More Low Fat Food

Recent studies from Cornell University show that the calories consumed in "low-fat" foods lead many people to eat 28 to 45 percent more calories than they would if they were eating the full-fat version.

There's a very simple mechanism at work here. The human tongue predominantly tastes only fat and sugar. Protein is rather bland without seasonings and the most delicious cuts of steak are also the fattiest. The more sugar in a fruit or vegetable, the less bland it is. When you make something "low fat", the fat has to be replaced with sugar or no one will eat it. So "low fat" is often higher sugar than the original product, but that's okay with some people because "it's the fat that makes you fat." Of course that's a myth, but nevertheless. The reason people eat more is because sugar stimulates the appetite. Once you stimulate those taste buds, it is very hard to turn down eating more. I have the same problem; I can willpower my way past the cookies and fudge and candy for days. But if I have "just a bite," one bite becomes ten.

It's an evolutionary mechanism. We evolved in an environment full of protein (animals), but relatively sparse in terms of fat and sugar. Wild animals are only fat at certain times of year and plants only flower and fruit during certain seasons. Those that could find the high-energy fat and sugar were most likely to pass on their genes and survive.

Naturally, the healthiest thing to do is to avoid snack foods. Special occasions, sure. But don't make Wednesday night a special occasion just cause it's a Wednesday. And when you do eat snacks, eat the original version, which is the one you really want anyway. Eat a bit less of it and call it a day. The fat will help to satisfy you anyway.

The Protein Debate Featuring...

...Doctors Loren Cordain and Colin Campbell, each top-notch in their respective fields. Dr. Cordain has made his mark in the realm of Paleolithic nutrition and runs The Paleo Diet website and Dr. Campbell is a worthy adversary with is research into low-protein vegetarian diets and avoidance of all animal products. Robb and Greg over at The Performance Menu put this debate together and it's awesome. It's 33 pages long, but is well worth the read. In typical medical fashion, each doctor writes his essay and the opponent offers a rebuttal; there are no follow-up rebuttals. Take your time and digest it, then consider the arguments made and any questions that the two doctors may leave you with.

And if you care about nutrition, health, and exercise, along with some great recipes, subscribe to The Performance Menu. It's only $30/year for 12 issues. You won't find a better source for top-notch nutrition information (and unfortunately I get no money for saying that).

More Low-Protein is Good BS

Long-Term Low-Protein Diet Reduces Markers of Cancer Risk

Does Too Much Protein In The Diet Increase Cancer Risk?

Ahh yes, back to damning the gluttony of us barbarian meat-eaters while extolling the virtues of a vegetarian lifestyle living in peace and harmony with plants and animals alike. These two articles discuss a recent study that comes to the conclusion that eating less protein lowers the risk of cancer. Let's look at some of the details:

The study involved three groups of people. The first ate a low-protein, low-calorie, raw food vegetarian diet and was made up of 21 lean men and women. Another group consisted of 21 lean subjects who did regular endurance running, averaging about 48 miles per week. The runners ate a standard Western diet, consuming more calories and protein than group one. The third group included 21 sedentary people who also consumed a standard Western diet, higher in sugars, processed refined grains and animal products. The subjects were matched for age, sex and other demographic factors, and no one smoked or had diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, lung disease or other chronic illness.
....
Fontana and colleagues found significantly lower blood levels of plasma insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in the low-protein diet group than in either the equally lean runners or the sedentary people eating a standard Western diet.
....
The average body mass index (BMI) in the low-protein, low-calorie group was 21.3. BMI averaged 21.1 among the runners and 26.5 among those who were sedentary. BMI is a measurement of weight divided by height squared. People with a BMI greater than 25 are considered overweight.

Is it just me or does it sound like they are comparing a great number of variables and coming to a conclusion about only one of them? So let's first look at the obvious variables:
- Fruit and vegetable intake: The vegetarians would obviously consume more.
- Animal product intake: The vegetarians would obviously consume less.
- Protein intake: Details above.
- Raw food: The vegetarian group was made up of raw-foodists.
- Different body-mass index: The vegetarians and runners were underweight while the control group was overweight.

So which variable caused the decrease in cancer risk? Could it be the extra vitamins and minerals the vegetarians took in from their higher fruit and vegetable intake? Could it be that the "Western style diet" (i.e., standard American crap) was higher in sugar from junk food? What types of animal products did they eat? Was the meat grain-fed and pumped full of antibiotics and hormones or natural, grass-fed meat? Do they count foods like salami, cured bacon, and other meats loaded with nitrates and nitrites, both known cancer-causers, as "animal products"? Was the "Western diet" higher in refined carbohydrates? What about fat? What was the comparison of the level of trans fat intake between the two groups? What about vegetable oil intake? Did the Westerners use vegetable oils in all of their polyunsaturated goodness with their known immunosuppressive properties instead of those "dangerous" saturated fats?

See, if you want to do a study, you need to set it up to look at ONLY THE VARIABLE YOU WANT TO EVALUATE! It is irresponsible science to have a study with 10+ variables and come to a conclusion for only one. It reeks of "this is what we wanted to find and lo, we found it." How come we never see a comparison of vegetarian diets to truly healthy carnivorous diets? When will we see a study comparing a group of vegetarians to a group of people eating a Hunter-Gatherer style diet with lots of fresh unprocessed meats, vegetables, fruits, fats from nuts and oils (olive, coconut, palm), and little in the way of grains or dairy? We probably won't; those pushing the vegetarian agenda don't want to compare their diet to a truly healthy way to live, only to the lowest common denominator. Yes, a vegetarian diet is likely healthier than a standard American diet. But the standard American diet is so woefully inadequate as to make this comparison laughable. Anyone still want to presume that it was really the protein intake?

The Myths of Healthy Eating Part 2

I just posted a new article on my website: The Myths of Healthy Eating Part II. Here is part I if you missed it.

Epigenetics

Originally posted 5-25-2006

A few months ago, I read an article that discussed epigenetics. A Medline search defines epigenetics as: epigenetic “factors refer to modifications of DNA and chromatin that ‘orchestrate’ the activity of the genome, including regulation of gene expression.” According to Wikipedia, “Epigenetics is the study of reversible heritable changes in gene function that occur without a change in the sequence of nuclear DNA.” In layman’s terms, it’s the study of why two people with the same DNA can look, feel, and perform so much differently.
It studies why those same two people with the same DNA can be in such different states of health.

So after reading this article, I set out doing some reading to find out just what is going on in the field of epigenetics. Until very recently, it was thought that changes to the DNA structure (insertions, deletions, and mutations) were the only cause of genetic variation. These structural changes to DNA are the very thing that has driven evolution. Epigenetics is the next layer of the onion. Epigenetic modificaitions, or “marks”, can turn a gene on or off, determining whether or not the gene can be used to make a protein. Basically, DNA determines protein structure while epigenetic modifications can determine which proteins are expressed.

These “marks” are passed from parent to child and, since they generally turn genes on or off, can cause diseases by abnormally suppressing or promoting certain genes. In the 1940’s, Dr. Francis M. Pottenger conducted a 10-year study using 900 cats to determine the effects of food on the body. What Dr. Pottenger noticed was that over the course of four generations, cats on a cooked food diet became progressively more diseased over three generations to the point that no fourth generation was ever born. Cats following a raw food diet continued to produce healthy, vibrant kittens. Few pretend to draw a parallel between human nutrition and cat nutrition, but the results of this study are striking, showing that epigenetic changes can cause detriment to the offspring of an organism, as they are also handed down from mother and father to child. These epigenetic changes are often owing to deficient diets, such as those that the unhealthy group of cats followed.

It appears that what we’re talking about is gene expression. Gene expression is what keeps people that are “genetically susceptible” to a disease from actually getting the disease. Most diseases are not inherited; rather a tendency for that disease is passed from parent to child. For instance, many people that have a family history of diabetes, heart disease, or cancer never develop those diseases. The development of the disease is dependent on gene expression. So what drives gene expression? Environmental factors. And what are the environmental factors that can be most easily controlled? Nutrition and exercise! Basically, even though someone may be susceptible to something due to epigenetic inheritance from their parents or epigenetic markers placed throughout their life, by taking care of themselves, they can overcome these diseases.

So there should be some interesting stuff coming down the pipe as scientists work to map the epigenome. Johns Hopkins has recently opened a center dedicated to the study of epigenetics. Of course, epigenetics will probably be rejected by the mainstream as it will require people to take responsibility for their lives. Epigenetics means that people’s actions can not only affect them, but can also determine the health of their children and grandchildren years down the line. People prefer to blame their genes rather than their own lifestyle for all of their ills. If you weren’t born with a disease (such as Downs Syndrome or Type I Diabetes), it is most likely your fault if you develop it. However, for all people that plan to have kids in the future, know that your actions, your lifestyle, the things you eat (and things you don’t eat), and your exercise (or lack thereof) may unnecessarily make your offspring more susceptible to certain diseases.

There is good news though: epigenetic modifications are reversible. While you can’t go back to your childhood and make your parents treat you better or un-experience a tragic event, you can manage your stress, diet, and exercise regimens to correct genes that have been altered. So follow a good exercise program, maintain a healthy diet, supplement with some Cod Liver Oil or Fish Oil, and limit your exposure to environmental toxins and stress as much as possible. If you don’t care about yourself, at least care about those (unborn) that will share your DNA for years to come.

References
Backgrounder: Epigenetics and Imprinted Genes
More on Pottenger’s Cats