Diet that actually works with Apnea

Jay Aitchsee wrote:And then there's this - What is a calorie, anyway?

Of course, we all know that we're talking about the energy available in foods. But there's the physical amount of energy and then there's the physiological amount of energy. Or, the amount of energy that can be obtained by burning and the amount of energy we as humans can extract metabolically. I'm not an expert, but I gather from a little Google work that the caloric values of foods we see on labels is based on the physical value of energy contained in the components, i.e., fats, carbs, protein, and alcohol, of a food modified by a coefficient of digestibility as determined by one Wilbur Olin Atwater in the 1800's. Apparently, Atwater determined these coefficients by studying the amount of food remaining in the feces of various animals after having been fed the food in question.

Further it seems, these coefficients of digestibility are essentially those used by the USDA in its 1973 publication, the Energy Value of Foods, which would appear to be the basis for all caloric labeling currently in use in the U.S. As I understand it, the food for which the caloric content is to be determined is first broken down into its components, again fats, carbs, protein, and alcohol, by mechanical and/or chemical means and the Atwater determinants are applied to the amounts of each component found. There is no attempt to determine the physiologic calorie content of the whole food.

Again I'm no expert and I certainly could be wrong, but in my quick trip through Google space, I did not find any reference to suggest that caloric labeling of food today has been modified in any way by studies in humans to determine the true physiological caloric content.

Interesting, I thought.

Energy Value of Foods; USDA, 1973 http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/D ... s/ah74.pdf

How do food manufacturers calculate the calorie count of packaged foods? http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ufacturers

e-Notes, calorie, http://www.enotes.com/calorie-reference/calorie-177741

Good point Jay. And those Atwater coefficients, are they the same for everybody? Certainly not. There are many factors that would enter into those coefficients like age, sex, size, ethnicity, gut flora, state of health, time of day, etc.

When trying to answer the question of what should we eat to stay healthy? -- One should simply ask what did humans eat for the last 200,000 years before there were doctors, and the USDA, and mass media marketing telling people how to eat?

Don't confuse fat in the body with fat in your food. 400 calories of carbohydrates in a meal may tend to make you fatter than 400 calories of fat in a meal because the carbohydrates get into your bloodstream more quickly and your body will store it away as fat. Then you'll be hungry again.

The 400 calories of fat will take longer to metabolize and may keep you from getting hungry for longer.

archangle wrote:Don't confuse fat in the body with fat in your food. 400 calories of carbohydrates in a meal may tend to make you fatter than 400 calories of fat in a meal because the carbohydrates get into your bloodstream more quickly and your body will store it away as fat. Then you'll be hungry again.

The 400 calories of fat will take longer to metabolize and may keep you from getting hungry for longer.

I don't think anyone has confused body fat with dietary fat -- but maybe I misread something

As for the 400 calories of carbs vs 400 calories of fat, it is true that carbs are easier to digest than fats. It is also true that excess blood glucose is stored as fat but how much and how fast depends on several factors like insulin sensitivity/resistance and glycogen storage capacity in the liver and muscle as well as immediate blood glucose levels. Glucose is indeed converted into ATP (adenosine triphosphate, the true fundamental unit of energy in cellular biochemistry) more quickly than fatty acids -- but glucose is also less efficient in terms of the amount ATP production relative to fatty acid conversion into ATP. That is why fats keep you from getting hungry for longer periods of time.

DreamStalker wrote:When trying to answer the question of what should we eat to stay healthy? -- One should simply ask what did humans eat for the last 200,000 years before there were doctors, and the USDA, and mass media marketing telling people how to eat?

Some form of "paleo" diet may be the best answer, but don't put too much faith in that.

Here are some reasons you can't put much faith in "paleo" diet.

Before 1900 or so, average lifespans were much lower than now. Depending on the source, in the 30's. We live a lot longer on our "bad" diet than the cavemen did on their "good" diet. I suspect that's due to factors other than diet, but it weakens the argument.

Once you pass peak childbearing age, evolution doesn't care about how healthy you are. Maybe a paleo diet helps you produce lots of kids but you die young. Evolution doesn't reward those who live long, healthy lives. Evolution rewards those who produce lots of kids who survive.

Eating enough "bad" food that's available makes you live longer than starving on "healthy" food that's not available in quantity. If there's enough unhealthy food in the area to feed 10,000 cavemen and enough healthy food to feed 1000 cavemen, you'll end up with a lot of cavemen eating the unhealthy stuff. When the population starts to outgrow the food supply, the people who live long and reproduce are those who eat what's available, not what's healthier, but not available. Living on the edge of starvation is probably the normal condition for humanity throughout history.

Cavemen presumably had to spend a lot of physical effort hunting or gathering. They may well need a different diet from those of us who don't spend all day in all out physical effort. Even modern athletes are probably couch potatoes compared to the average person before 1900.

I do think there's some value in the idea of a paleo diet. However, it's from from a foregone conclusion that what the cavemen ate is what we should eat.

DreamStalker wrote:
Good point Jay. And those Atwater coefficients, are they the same for everybody? Certainly not. There are many factors that would enter into those coefficients like age, sex, size, ethnicity, gut flora, state of health, time of day, etc.

There is also the amount of calories required to digest the food which should be subtracted. There is a big difference between cooked and raw food in the digestion requirements.

Any woman past menopause will tell you that food and fat stores differently then before. I was more active in my late forties and fifties, didn't change my "fairly healthy" eating habits and still put on weight during that time. I was only working part time at a desk job, doing shiatsu massage part time and working out with weights and running as well as having an acre of vegetable garden and an acre of lawn using a manual mower. I started putting on fat around my waist. My diet was high in carbs and lower then average in fats, mostly vegetarian. When I moved to the city my diet stayed the similar, I was cycling to work 40 minutes each way and I still put on weight.

archangle wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:When trying to answer the question of what should we eat to stay healthy? -- One should simply ask what did humans eat for the last 200,000 years before there were doctors, and the USDA, and mass media marketing telling people how to eat?

Some form of "paleo" diet may be the best answer, but don't put too much faith in that.

Here are some reasons you can't put much faith in "paleo" diet.

Before 1900 or so, average lifespans were much lower than now. Depending on the source, in the 30's. We live a lot longer on our "bad" diet than the cavemen did on their "good" diet. I suspect that's due to factors other than diet, but it weakens the argument.

Once you pass peak childbearing age, evolution doesn't care about how healthy you are. Maybe a paleo diet helps you produce lots of kids but you die young. Evolution doesn't reward those who live long, healthy lives. Evolution rewards those who produce lots of kids who survive.

Eating enough "bad" food that's available makes you live longer than starving on "healthy" food that's not available in quantity. If there's enough unhealthy food in the area to feed 10,000 cavemen and enough healthy food to feed 1000 cavemen, you'll end up with a lot of cavemen eating the unhealthy stuff. When the population starts to outgrow the food supply, the people who live long and reproduce are those who eat what's available, not what's healthier, but not available. Living on the edge of starvation is probably the normal condition for humanity throughout history.

Cavemen presumably had to spend a lot of physical effort hunting or gathering. They may well need a different diet from those of us who don't spend all day in all out physical effort. Even modern athletes are probably couch potatoes compared to the average person before 1900.

I do think there's some value in the idea of a paleo diet. However, it's from from a foregone conclusion that what the cavemen ate is what we should eat.

There you go mixing faith and science again.

The main reason for change in lifespan is that modern medical technology has reduced infant mortality (which by the way is on the rise again due to toxic GMO/HFCS infant formulas replacing mother's milk). There is archeologic evidence that "paleolithic" humans lived just as long if not longer than today's humans. Your media propaganda has again fooled you. Furthermore, modern trauma medicine can be cited as contributing to an increase in longevity -- but IMO, modern medicine also kills just as many as modern trauma medicine saves, through unnecessary drug prescriptions, misdiagnosis, and myopic treatment rather than holistic prevention.

You confuse evolution with DNA but what you say is true, our DNA does not care about our health after childbearing age -- but our DNA determines the end of our childbearing age based upon hormonal signals which in turn are strongly influenced by what we eat. Regardless, for me it is not longevity that matters ... it's the QUALITY of life that matters and for that good health is essential.

As for global population being an issue, we're already there -- most people just don't realize it yet. The problem of over population is the direct cause of agriculture and the use of cheap fuel energy. But this topic however diverges from that intended by this thread topic.

Again, your presumptions are misguided by propaganda. Yes our paleolithic ancestors worked hard to survive the environmental threats of hunting and gathering with minimal technology but they spent plenty of time resting and playing, perhaps more so than a lot of today's metropolitan lifestyles.

The only "foregone conclusion" is that your "belief" in science is not strong enough for you to understand it.

archangle wrote: Once you pass peak childbearing age, evolution doesn't care about how healthy you are. Maybe a paleo diet helps you produce lots of kids but you die young. Evolution doesn't reward those who live long, healthy lives. Evolution rewards those who produce lots of kids who survive.

Wrong. There is plenty of proof that having people live long after child bearing age benefits the group which also benefits the number of children who survive. This applies to women in particular. It is referred to as the Grandmother advantage. The longer women live the more surviving grandchildren they have. Human "survival of the fittest" often applies to groups, not individuals. Human groups which specialized and had long living members were just more successful. Old people were the libraries of the tribe, they were the ones who remembered which watering hole never went dry, where the game went on those odd years.

Also once you remove the infant mortality from the equation, paleolithic humans lived quite long, longer then humans did after inventing agriculture, also hunter gatherer groups basically had a 35 hour work week. Meaning in 35 hours per week they produced all their basic needs and they could party/play the rest of the time.

BlackSpinner wrote: There is plenty of proof that having people live long after child bearing age benefits the group which also benefits the number of children who survive. This applies to women in particular. It is referred to as the Grandmother advantage. The longer women live the more surviving grandchildren they have. Human "survival of the fittest" often applies to groups, not individuals.

I agree. The grandmother's genes have a higher chance of being propagated throughout the generations, because nurturing and collaborating with her own direct lineage increases THEIR chances of survival. The grandchildren carry her genes and she strives to ensure their survival. The grandmother advantage is a specific example of what sociobiologists refer to as genetic survival value.

-SWS wrote:

BlackSpinner wrote: There is plenty of proof that having people live long after child bearing age benefits the group which also benefits the number of children who survive. This applies to women in particular. It is referred to as the Grandmother advantage. The longer women live the more surviving grandchildren they have. Human "survival of the fittest" often applies to groups, not individuals.

I agree. The grandmother's genes have a higher chance of being propagated throughout the generations, because nurturing and collaborating with her own direct lineage increases THEIR chances of survival. The grandchildren carry her genes and she strives to ensure their survival. The Grandmother Advantage is a specific example of what sociobiologists refer to as genetic survival value.

Is there an advantage between paternal vs maternal grandmothers?

I know you are looking at genetic survival from social perspective but I was just wondering since mitochondrial DNA is only passed on via maternal grandmothers whereas X-chromosome DNA is passed from both.

DreamStalker wrote: Is there an advantage between paternal vs maternal grandmothers?

I know you are looking at genetic survival from social perspective but I was just wondering since mitochondrial DNA is only passed on via maternal grandmothers whereas X-chromosome DNA is passed from both.

Good question. I'm not sure....

I don't think the human genome has been inventoried specific to which nDNA traits and which mtDNA traits enhance genetic survival value----let alone with individual-trait probability weightings relative to survival. Darn good question IMHO...

DreamStalker wrote:
Is there an advantage between paternal vs maternal grandmothers?

I know you are looking at genetic survival from social perspective but I was just wondering since mitochondrial DNA is only passed on via maternal grandmothers whereas X-chromosome DNA is passed from both.

I don't think it matters, because in many cultures the woman moves in with the man's family. Then the man's mother would be helping her with the babies. Either grandmother has a vested interest in the babies.

Interestingly in studies I have read the effect of a grandfather is negligible or even negative.

BlackSpinner wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:
Is there an advantage between paternal vs maternal grandmothers?

I know you are looking at genetic survival from social perspective but I was just wondering since mitochondrial DNA is only passed on via maternal grandmothers whereas X-chromosome DNA is passed from both.

I don't think it matters, because in many cultures the woman moves in with the man's family. Then the man's mother would be helping her with the babies. Either grandmother has a vested interest in the babies.

Interestingly in studies I have read the effect of a grandfather is negligible or even negative.

This is very interesting.

It's amazing that the grandfather has so little effect, yet if you take a father out of the picture, the child's identity is substantially effected. I love culture. . . it's so blasted interesting.

According to that BBC documentary I linked to a few posts back, the grandfather does have a genetic effect on survivability of the grandchildren -- though perhaps not so much from a social/cultural standpoint. The environmental stress that the grandfather experiences during his teen years will affect his grandchildren ... so they say.

DreamStalker wrote:According to that BBC documentary I linked to a few posts back, the grandfather does have a genetic effect on survivability of the grandchildren -- though perhaps not so much from a social/cultural standpoint. The environmental stress that the grandfather experiences during his teen years will affect his grandchildren ... so they say.

Yes there. But for increasing the survival of his grandchildren simply by his presence in their lives, the way a grandmother does, does not seem to work. When there were long living women (grandmothers) there were more surviving children.

BlackSpinner wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:According to that BBC documentary I linked to a few posts back, the grandfather does have a genetic effect on survivability of the grandchildren -- though perhaps not so much from a social/cultural standpoint. The environmental stress that the grandfather experiences during his teen years will affect his grandchildren ... so they say.

Yes there. But for increasing the survival of his grandchildren simply by his presence in their lives, the way a grandmother does, does not seem to work. When there were long living women (grandmothers) there were more surviving children.

Yep yep, I'm not disputing the Grandmother Advantage as a genetic survival value. Just noting that the teens years of the grandpa appear to affect the genetic survival of his grandchildren through epi-genetic inheritance.

I was thinking that perhaps one reason for the Grandmother Advantage may be that men have historically been exposed to more potential trauma than women and therefore aren't around long enough to contribute as grandfathers.