|
 Favorite
Five
DNA Testing
Proves Humans Are Designed as Starch Eaters
Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene
copy number variation by George H. Perry
published in the October 2007 issue of Nature
Genetics found that there are more
copies of genes that produce starch-digesting
enzymes, known as amylases, in the human saliva
than there are in lesser primates. The average
human has roughly three times more copies of the
salivary amylase genes than do fruit-eating apes
and monkeys. Even among humans the number of
copies was dependent upon the amount of starchy
vegetables in their respective diets. For
example, populations who eat more starch (such
as rural Japanese) were found to have more
copies than do people living on lower starch
diets with meat and fish added (for example,
Yakut of the Arctic). These findings confirm
the predominant importance of starchy vegetables
and grains in the human diet.
(Amylases are
enzymes secreted by the
salivary glands and pancreas to break down
starches into maltose—a double-sugar made up of
two glucose molecules—and dextrin. The
genes that produce amylase are not present at
all in the saliva of carnivorous animals, such
as cats, because these animals are not supposed
to eat starchy vegetables.)
Comment:
The researchers begin their article by noting,
“Starch consumption is a prominent
characteristic of agricultural societies and
hunter-gatherers in arid environments.”
Recorded human history tells of most
populations living on starch-based diets. Some
examples are the ancient Egyptians who lived on
wheat, the Incas who lived on potatoes, the
Aztecs and Mayans who lived on corn, and the
Japanese who lived on buckwheat and later
rice. The few peoples who have based their
diets on meat have lived at the extremes of the
earth’s environment, such as the Eskimos in the
Arctic and a few small gatherings living deep in
the jungles of South America and Africa.
These researchers
reasoned further that starchy foods, like
tubers, were crucial to the successful
evolution of early humans, because starches
offer important advantages. Their abundant,
readily-available calories provide for the
energy required for the evolutionary enlargement
of our brains. The modern human brain uses 20%
of our daily calories, and the preferred fuel
for the brain is glucose, derived most
efficiently by digesting starches. With
attainment of the knowledge of the use of fire,
which occurred concurrently with our brain
development, starches became a goldmine of
brain-feeding calories.
The ability to use
starch also opened up the opportunity for early
humans to migrate out of Africa—to colonize of
the rest of the planet. Starches were widely
distributed geographically and easy to
gather—tubers, like potatoes, are easily dug up
out of the ground. Bulbs, corms, and tubers act
as underground storage units for concentrated
starches and last in the ground throughout the
winter. These starches were a critical food
source for the ancestors of early and modern
humans. Once harvested, starches, such as
potatoes and grains, can be stored at ambient
temperatures for long periods of time—providing
nutrition throughout the year. Fruit eating
would not offer these advantages because fruits
are relatively low in calories, spoil quickly,
and in the more northern and southern latitudes
fruits are available only seasonally. Primates
who live on fruit diets are tied to the tropical
jungles.
Proponents of
meat-based diets preach that the introduction of
meat into the human diet was responsible for the
evolutionary development of the human brain.
One of this study’s principle authors said this
theory is improbable. Nathaniel Dominy pointed
out, “Even when you look at modern human
hunter-gatherers, meat is a relatively small
fraction of their diet. They cooperate with
language, use nets; they have poisoned arrows,
even, and still it's not that easy to hunt meat.
To think that, two to four million years ago, a
small-brained, awkwardly bipedal animal could
efficiently acquire meat, even by scavenging,
just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.”
Before the
availability of DNA testing many other
observations have proven we are designed to be
primarily plant-eaters. Our teeth are for
grinding, not the tearing of animal flesh. Our
intestines are long and convoluted for digestion
of fibrous plant-foods; meat-eaters’ intestines
are much shorter and relatively simple for
quickly digesting and eliminating the digested
flesh. For a more complete discussion of our
anatomy and physiology which establishes us as
primarily plant-food eaters see my
July 2003 newsletter: Meat in the Human Diet.
Through the modern
science of DNA we have discovered an essential
truth locked in our genes: humans are starch
eaters. The failure to abide by this truth has
resulted in unprecedented human disease due to
malnutrition from over-nutrition, and an
impending environmental collapse from the
livestock industries supporting Western people’s
perverse diet. Applying correct information
about human nutrition results in miraculous
cures of dietary diseases (for example, obesity,
type-2 diabetes, inflammatory arthritis, and the
ravages of atherosclerosis). The eventual
return of humans to their starch-based diet will
be a huge step in solving our environmental
crises, as well.
Perry GH, Dominy NJ, Claw KG, Lee AS, et al.
Diet and the evolution of human
amylase gene copy number variation. Nat
Genet. 2007 Oct;39(10):1256-60. Epub 2007
Sep 9.
Calcium
Requirements Much Lower Than Previously
Estimated
Calcium requirements: new estimations for men
and women by cross-sectional statistical
analyses of calcium balance data from metabolic
studies by
Curtiss D.
Hunt published in the October 2007 issue of the
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
concluded, “The findings suggest
that the calcium requirement for men and women
is lower than previously estimated…the new
balance data also concur with the recognition
that saturation of the active
transport component of calcium absorption occurs
at an intake of
500
mg/day. The new estimation is in line with
the previous consideration that
individuals with low, but nutritionally
adequate, intakes of sodium and protein
may have calcium requirements as low
as 500 mg/day.”
Data was used from
a series of tightly controlled metabolic
in-house feeding studies conducted
between 1976 and 1995 by the US Department of
Agriculture to estimate the amount of dietary
calcium needed to maintain a neutral
calcium balance. The diets consumed by subjects
were composed of ordinary Western foods. Diets
lower in protein, acid, sodium, and caffeine
(like the McDougall diet) would reduce human
calcium requirements even further.
Comment:
Commonly recommended requirements for calcium
are 1000 to 1200 mg a day. However, this study
found that neutral calcium balance (when the
calcium consumed equals the calcium lost in the
urine and feces) was on average an intake of 741
mg/day. However, when calcium intakes were
varied in the studies from 415 mg to 1740 mg per
day the subjects still remained in a neutral
balance. In other words, when fed a relatively
low calcium diet (415 mg/day) the body would
adjust; the intestines would more efficiently
absorb calcium, the kidneys would conserve
calcium, and the person’s needs were met
(always). When overfed with calcium (1740
mg/day) the body also adjusts; the intestines
block calcium absorption, the kidneys eliminate
more calcium, and injuries (such as soft tissue
calcification) from excess calcium are avoided.
The body is so smart.
Because of the
innate intelligence of our intestines the most
basic diets of starches, vegetables and fruits
(without a speck of dairy foods) have sufficient
calcium in them to meet our needs—and this is
why “disease of calcium deficiency” from any
natural diet is non-existent. Many people think
osteoporosis is due to calcium deficiency; but
this bone loss is primarily due to excess animal
protein with its associated dietary acids. On
the opposite end of intake, when we overdose
with calcium by consuming glassfuls of milk or
handfuls of calcium pills our gut saves us by
blocking the absorption of this potentially
toxic element. As mentioned above, “…saturation
of the active transport component of
calcium absorption occurs at an
intake of
 500
mg/day.”
This review of the
basic research should put to rest the message
that large intakes of calcium are necessary for
healthy bones—but it won’t, because of the money
to be made by the dairy and calcium supplement
industries. In addition to large quantities of
calcium being unnecessary, dairy consumption
brings these added risks: the fat and
cholesterol cause heart disease, the sugar
causes intestinal distress from lactose
intolerance, and the contamination with
environmental chemicals and microbes, including
leukemia and AIDS viruses, is a very real
threat.
For more on dairy foods and calcium see my Hot
Topics.
Hunt CD, Johnson LK. Calcium
requirements: new estimations for men and women
by cross-sectional statistical analyses of
calcium balance data from metabolic studies.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Oct;86(4):1054-63.
Rising
Trend—Double Mastectomies
Increasing Use of Contralateral Prophylactic
Mastectomy for Breast Cancer Patients: A Trend
Toward More Aggressive Surgical Treatment by
Todd Tuttle in the October 2007 issue of
Journal of Clinical Oncology found, “The
rate (of removing the opposite healthy breast)
was 3.3% for all surgically treated patients;
7.7%, for patients undergoing mastectomy.1
The overall rate significantly increased from
1.8% in 1998 to 4.5% in 2003. Likewise, the
contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rate for
patients undergoing mastectomy significantly
increased from 4.2% in 1998 to 11.0% in 2003.”
Comment:
Dr. Tuttle said in an Associated Press story
published on October 23, 2007:
"I'm afraid that women
believe having their opposite breast removed is
somehow going to improve their breast cancer
survival. In fact, it probably will not affect
their survival." There are several reasons no
survival benefit will be realized from removing
the opposite “healthy” breast, but the main
reason is; that if the woman truly has breast
cancer, her disease has already spread to the
rest of her body long before the breast cancer
was diagnosed. So no matter how much of her
anatomy she has removed (a lumpectomy, a single
mastectomy, a double mastectomy—with or without
removal of her lymph nodes) her date with death
will remain unchanged.
These days, many
women without breast cancer are having both of
their breasts removed because of the fear that
has been created around this disease. Some of
this fear is justified—breast cancer is the most
common cancer among North American and Western
European women—the cumulative risk for this
disease is 10% up to the age of 80 years. The
results of “preventative prophylactic
mastectomies” remain controversial, because no
randomized controlled trials to substantiate the
potential benefit or harms have been done.
Even for women
with a family susceptibility (including those
who are carriers of the genetic mutations BRCA 1
or 2), the benefits and harms of removing both
healthy breasts are still unclear. A Cochrane
Review2 published in 2004 on women
with BRCA mutations concluded: “Published
observational studies demonstrated that
bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) was
effective in reducing both the incidence of, and
death from, breast cancer, more rigorous
prospective studies (ideally randomized trials)
are needed…By one estimate, most of the women
deemed high risk by family history (but not
necessarily BRCA 1 or 2 mutation carriers) who
underwent these procedures would not have died
from breast cancer, even without prophylactic
surgery…Of the psychosocial outcomes measured,
body image and feelings of femininity were the
most adversely affected.”
What is clear is
that very few women are counseled to eat healthy
for breast cancer prevention (or treatment).
In the minds of many doctors and researchers,
recommending that a woman change her diet is
just too much to ask—compared to what?
For possibly a
few extra days of life women are now willing to
undergo:
Annual mammograms
Monthly breast self-examinations
Annual clinical (physician) breast exams
Biopsy
Mastectomy
Lymph node removal
Radiation
Ovary removal
Anti-estrogen drugs
Poly-chemotherapy
Asking women to
eat No Huevos Rancheros for breakfast, Festive
Dal Soup for lunch, and for dinner, Thai Green
Curry Rice (all recipes prepared on the new DVD,
McDougall Made Irresistible) should be the first
and foremost recommendation received by a women
if she’s concerned about breast cancer
prevention or treatment. She is entitled to this
from her professional medical team.
1)
Tuttle TM, Habermann EB, Grund EH, Morris TJ,
Virnig BA. Increasing Use of
Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy for Breast
Cancer Patients: A Trend Toward More Aggressive
Surgical Treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Oct 22; [Epub
ahead of print]
2)
Lostumbo L, Carbine N, Wallace J, Ezzo J.
Prophylactic mastectomy for the prevention of
breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004
Oct 18;(4):CD002748.
Low-Fat Diet Reduces Ovarian Cancer
Low-fat dietary
pattern and cancer incidence in the Women's
Health Initiative Dietary Modification
Randomized Controlled Trial by Ross Prentice
reported in the Journal of the National
Cancer Institute found, “A low-fat dietary
pattern may reduce the incidence of ovarian
cancer among postmenopausal women.” The
relative reduction of ovarian cancer was about
40% achieved after 4 years. A total of 48,835
postmenopausal women were randomly assigned
during 1993-1998 to a lower fat intervention or
comparison group and followed up for an average
of 8.1 years. The intervention goal was to
reduce total fat intake to 20% of energy and to
increase consumption of vegetables, fruits, and
grains. The actual reduction in fat was to 29%
of the calories.
Comment:
Most women see no way to help reduce their risk
of death from ovarian cancer. Early detection
methods are ineffective and treatments result in
little if any survival benefit. Worldwide
population studies find a relationship of diet
and ovarian cancer—women on a lower fat, higher
plant-food based, lower-dairy food diets have
less risk.
The Women's Health
Initiative Dietary Modification Randomized
Controlled Trial cost $415 million and was very
ineffective at modifying women’s diets. I have
discussed this diet in relation to breast cancer
in a past newsletter (See
February 2006, Readers' Responses to the
"Low-fat Diet Failure" News). The fact that
this study showed any benefit at all from the
feeble intervention diet prescribed is
remarkable and worth reporting. We can only
imagine what the consequences of feeding a truly
healthy starch-based, low-fat (7% of calories)
diet might have been for women.
Prentice RL,
Thomson CA, Caan B, Hubbell FA, Anderson GL,
Beresford SA, et al. Low-fat dietary pattern and
cancer incidence in the Women's Health
Initiative Dietary Modification Randomized
Controlled Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst.
2007 Oct 17;99(20):1534-43. Epub 2007 Oct 9.
Additives
Impair Child’s Behavior
Food additives
and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and
8/9-year-old children in the community: a
randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled
trial by Donna McCann published in the
September 5, 2007 issue of the Lancet
found, “Artificial colors or a sodium benzoate
preservative (or both) in the diet result in
increased hyperactivity in 3-year-old and
8/9-year-old children in the general population…
and that food additives exacerbate hyperactive
behaviors (inattention, impulsivity, and overactivity) in children at least up to middle
childhood. Increased hyperactivity is associated
with the development of educational
difficulties, especially in relation to reading,
and therefore these adverse effects could affect
the child's ability to benefit from the
experience of schooling. These findings show
that adverse effects are not just seen in
children with extreme hyperactivity (ie, ADHD),
but can also be seen in the general population
and across the range of severities of
hyperactivity.”1
In the study, 153
three-year-old and 144 eight and nine-year-old
children drank a mixture containing sodium
benzoate and one of two artificial food color
and additives mixes (A or B) or a placebo mix.
The additives chosen are commonly found in the
food supply. Mix A for 3-year-old children
included 20 mg of artificial food colorings (5
mg sunset yellow [E110], 2·5 mg carmoisine
[E122], 7·5 mg tartrazine, and 5 mg ponceau 4R
and 45 mg of sodium benzoate. Active mix B
included 30 mg of artificial food colorings (7·5
mg sunset yellow, 7·5 mg carmoisine, 7·5 mg
quinoline yellow, and 7·5 mg allura red AC) and
45 mg of sodium benzoate.
Comment:
Food additives have long been suspected of
causing overactive, impulsive, and inattentive
behavior in children. Benjamin Feingold, MD
described this effect of chemicals added to
foods 32 years ago. Many of these children are
eventually diagnosed as having Attention-Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and then placed on
mood-altering drugs, such as Ritalin,
Adderall, Concerta,
and Strattera.
Effects on a
child’s behavior have also been found with dairy
products,2 caffeine,3 and
organic pollutants.4 Resulting
illnesses and obesity from an unhealthy diet
also have a profound effect on a child’s
behavior and ability to learn. Therefore, before
any child is declared incurably hyperactive, or
otherwise behaviorally disturbed, a change to a
starch-based diet with a strong emphasis on
organic foods should be tried.
Children already
on medications should have their diets improved,
and the medications stopped or reduced under
doctor’s supervision as they improve. Benefits
should be evident with a few days to weeks. My
experience leads me to state that parents who
make an honest effort at this approach will not
be disappointed.
1) McCann D,
Barrett A, Cooper A, Crumpler D, Dalen L,
Grimshaw K, Kitchin E, et al. Food additives
and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and
8/9-year-old children in the community: a
randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled
trial. Lancet. 2007 Sep 5; [Epub ahead of
print]
2)
Kaplan BJ, McNicol J, Conte RA, Moghadam HK.
Dietary replacement in preschool-aged
hyperactive boys. Pediatrics. 1989
Jan;83(1):7-17.
3)
Hughes JR, Hale KL. Behavioral
effects of caffeine and other methylxanthines on
children. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1998
Feb;6(1):87-95.
4)
Lee DH, Jacobs DR, Porta M.
Association of serum concentrations of
persistent organic pollutants with the
prevalence of learning disability and attention
deficit disorder. J Epidemiol Community
Health. 2007 Jul;61(7):591-6.
|
