Blog

8

I have been eating a mostly paleo diet for over a year now, but lately I've been thinking more and more about evolution, and whether we should evolve the idea of paleo to move past the paleolithic era and into the modern era.

Humans have been evolving since our paleo ancestors, as I'm sure we can agree on - for example, some people can digest lactose and others cannot. Some people are naturally skinny, and others are naturally big, like when you compare Kenyan people to Inuit people.

Don't we need to look past paleo, further into the future, and research our individual family lineage to better understand what our optimal diets should be (everyone's would be slightly different)?

So if, for example, my ancestors have been eating rice and beans for 20 generations, does that mean that my body would be primed and optimized to continue to eat rice and beans? At least a little bit anyway.

Evolution does not stop. Humans are still evolving today. I believe epigenetics explains that during individual lifetimes, our environment and lifestyle affects how our DNA is expressed, how are genes are used, and those changes are then passed down to offspring.

Why should we discount the past 12,000 years of humans eating grains?

What will my lifestyle choices and eating habits do for my offspring's genes/epigenome?

How can each individual find their one true perfect diet?

flag
2 
When the egyptians started eating grains, for many generations they had mass infant mortality (stillbirths). We dont get stillbirths anymore, so grains no longer kill your outright, so yes, we have evolved somewhat to wheat. Its not enough time for people to have fully adapted, but some adaption has taken place. People do also have different genes. As for beans, well I am not sure if we are poorly adapted or not. The hazda eat tsi-tsi beans, and they live in the cradle of civilisation. Then again, different beans may be different. Thats a harder call IMO. – Jamie Oct 17 at 23:07
1 
Why do you think the Inuit are big? – Diane Oct 17 at 23:23
1 
@Jamie, I messed up the number, but it's now fixed to say 12,000 years. @Diane, I mean that the Inuit are thicker because of the cold climate they have adapted to. From a Google search: In 1847, the German biologist Carl Bergmann observed that within the same species of warm-blooded animals, populations having less massive individuals are more often found in warm climates near the equator, while those with greater bulk, or mass, are found further from the equator in colder regions. – chipaleo Oct 18 at 2:24
1 
@Jamie where did you get *When the egyptians started eating grains, for many generations they had mass infant mortality * ?? – meta Oct 18 at 3:30
1 
Who is to say that their grain-eating was the cause of the infant deaths? What if it was the God of the Hebrews slaying all their first-borns? – Dan Oct 18 at 17:06
show 6 more comments

11 Answers

5

20 generations are nothing on an evolutionary timescale. How sure are you that all of your 1048576 potential ancestors ate only rice and beans? You'd be surprised how many of them didn't.

link|flag
1 
It's much less than 1048576 ancestors... inbreeding and all you know. – Matt Oct 18 at 3:03
You're from the UK, you should know all about inbreeding... royal family and all that. – Matt Oct 18 at 3:04
I said 1048576 potential ancestors. – borofergie Oct 18 at 3:07
I'd guess my ancestors started heavily eating the dairy, grain and potatoes 400-500 years ago, with the advent of world trade. I'm well adapted to all three, so for my N=1 20 generations was enough to develop a heritable adaptation. – thhq Oct 18 at 15:41
2 
So borofergie when did we become genetically adapted to eating processed foods like bacon and coconut oil? Fish reaches back to before paleo. So do fruits. So that's maybe all that a paleo dieter must include in his/her diet? That's nonsense. We've adapted to eat all of the above foods, even though we've only been eating stuff like coconut oil and tofu for the past 0.25 generations. – thhq Oct 18 at 19:52
show 5 more comments
3

This woman: http://www.thepaleomom.com/2012/07/why-arent-humans-adapted-to-grains.html explains it really well. Read and you'll understand. :)

link|flag
3

With the exception of a small percentage of people that have severe allergies and intolerances to grain based proteins (note I said proteins and not carbs), most people benefit from paleo because it helps with obesity, which is caused by the tremendous intake of processed foods, highly sedentary lifestyles and appetites that are out of control.

You would find that your grandparents, great-grandparents and so forth had very few issues with managing weight despite having bread and other grains as dietary staples.

In respect to considering the role of epigenetics in your progeny see: http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/142195/beyond-dna-epigenetics

link|flag
1 
I think the imbedding of ancestral diets takes relatively few generations to be heritable. Half my ancestors ate a Nordic "white" diet of dairy, fish, potatoes and grains, and very few fresh fruits and vegetables. We the descendants inherited relatively few problems with gluten, lactose and casein. But we also inherited a diet which is terrible (excepting the fish) if you overeat it. That side of my family had/has a lot of obesity and CV problems. – thhq Oct 18 at 13:21
3

Adding another thought... is there evidence that intolerances are the norm? Wheat, grains, soy, dairy, legumes, etc. The assumption is that paleolithic man didn't eat these because he was intolerant to them. Who's to say that present-day intolerances aren't modern in origin?

Ok, lactose intolerance is an ancient intolerance that's actually getting bred out over time. It's something that suggests that evolution is faster than we'd like to admit. Who's to say that intolerances to legumes, grains, soy aren't getting bred in?

Another example of paleo normalizing dysfunction?

link|flag
The argument is not that paleo man didn't eat these foods because he was intolerant, but that they did not exist as food. The caveat, of course, is if someone is starving they will try to eat anything. Since all infants nurse, the adaptation to be able to drink milk consists of a pre-existing capability not being turned off, which is far simpler than adapting to eat wheat, for instance. Especially the modern hybrid stuff that has just been invented within the past 40yrs or so. – August Oct 18 at 19:04
Primitive versions did exist, man didn't create them, they were around before man. If we don't eat foods now because they didn't exist then is the entire premise behind paleo (it isn't), then that makes paleo a pretty unsound theory of eating. Who's to say that current intolerances to grains, legumes, soy aren't modern? After all, we cannot know if paleolithic man was intolerant to such foods or not. – Matt Oct 18 at 22:30
When you ask if intolerances are being bred in, does that mean genetic predisposition to food intolerances is increasing? It's an interesting idea, I just want to make sure that's what you're saying. I once got in a little argument with Andrew Badenoch who suggested celiac disease was an evolved adaptation to a harmful compound. Perhaps not exactly the same. – Mscott Oct 21 at 22:20
Evolution goes either way. We can gain or lose tolerance to certain foods. Is modern-day gluten intolerance coming about in a similar manner to modern-day lactose tolerance? I don't know, but it's an interesting question to ask. I'm not sure I agree with Mr. Badenoch, gluten is not a harmful compound. It's not a plant defense mechanism, it's a storage protein as far as I can tell. What evolutionary (reproductive) advantage would there be to gluten-intolerance? – Matt Oct 22 at 1:32
2

If you are healthy and young, if your ancestors ate agricultural products for many generations, if you eat organic, traditionally prepared grains and beans, similar to what your ancestors ate, then probably you will be able to tolerate that well.

I'd like to remind though that your ancestors probably had weak bones, bad teeth and smaller complexion than people who ate meat oriented diet. Please don't accept as an insult - but people of agricultural empires were sicker and weaker than barbarians, that's a historical fact.

link|flag
My ancestors ate way more dairy, so I would expect they had better bones and teeth than I do. – thhq Oct 18 at 15:46
If they ate more diary I assume they were from north so they didn't eat that much grains and beans and probably didn't eat wheat. – manul Oct 18 at 22:58
This question provoked a lot of N=1 introspection. Prior to the advent of world trade 500 years ago, my ancestors probably ate a high percentage of fish with minimal carbs. There were no potatoes, and grains and dairy levels had to have been much lower. Fresh vegetables and fruits are an even newer addition, in the last 50-100 years. Worst of all: no coffee. They took to that like fish to water. – thhq Oct 19 at 19:45
You could see the vestiges of the diet in my grandparents. Salad meant cottage cheese with mayo and a piece of canned fruit. If you were lucky you got a piece of iceberg lettuce with that. – thhq Oct 19 at 19:49
2

I'm currently reading about a major selection event. In the summer of 1830 the indigenous tribes along the Columbia River were struck by "cold fever". By accounts from the time this appears to have been malaria, because those struck by it were responsive to quinine and bark extracts. The population was literally decimated, with entire tribes and villages suffering 100% mortality. Tens of thousands died. Yet while the English & American fur traders in the area were affected by it, the fever was not generally fatal to them. At this point in time the affected indigenous tribes have recovered. It appears that a selective adaptation has taken place, within 5-10 generations.

Contrast this with lactose and gluten tolerance. While selective forces may have been strong in ancient Egypt, the much earlier central Anatolians were already adapted to grain eating. Considering that couscous and other grain products are now staple foods in Egypt, and that the population is much larger than it was 4000 years ago, it appears that similar selection occurred there as well.

Is this evolution? Maybe so, maybe not. These tolerances are often reversable. But they are also heritable.

link|flag
A selective event like the more resistant English and American fur traders perhaps getting a little freaky with the indigenous tribe members? – JayJay Oct 18 at 0:10
One of the eerie aspects of this event was an angry American opening a bottle which he claimed contained the disease. Whether it did is unlikely, but his name was associated with it. – thhq Oct 18 at 1:25
1

Of course we are still evolving. Personally, I think of paleo as a process to get to the root of your current biological state.

Would 20 generations get you there? No, probably not. Regardless, you and your siblings have different gene expressions, so what's true for you might not be for him/her.

But, eliminate all neolithic foods and get your body right. then slow add back in other foods and see how you react. I have been surprised to know that I apparently react poorly to potatoes (And I have Irish Ancestry) but seem to have no reaction to other nightshades.

Use paleo as a template for eliminating troubling foods from your diet and to heal your body. Then experiment.

link|flag
1

You don't need to argue evolution with your ability to digest rice and beans. Most everybody can (despite what paleo says). Just because some ancestor a few hundred thousand years ago didn't eat X, doesn't mean they couldn't digest X, doesn't mean you can't digest X, doesn't mean you shouldn't eat X.

X = rice, beans, wheat, etc...

link|flag
X = dairy also. – thhq Oct 18 at 15:52
1

I have not yet reintroduced rice or oats but I actually have reintroduced black beans and have no trouble with them at all. I think that eliminating grains eliminates processed foods which is the major reason that people feel so great on a paleo diet. I doubt that rice and oats are all that bad in their true form but most people dont eat that... They eat bread and crackers and chip. This is just my speculation... I plan to reintroduce rice and oats in a few weeks and see how I feel. I also think that most people rely too heavily on them. Eating a portion of grains a day is probably fine but most people today eat them as 50% of their calories.

link|flag
0

In the history of all mankind it was seen...blah, blah, blah.

N=1

Yeah, that's still pretty much the answer to nearly every question posted on this board.

link|flag
0

Evolution takes a long time. We do make adaptations to our current environment: indeed, one of the reasons people get so obese nowadays is to survive under the current onslaught of artificiality.
One could therefore make the argument that in the modern era, we are devolving- adapting to an artificial environment that we will soon no longer be able to maintain.
In terms of things like rice and beans- look, with evolutionary theory we can make educated guesses- hypothesis that can be tested. So we say from a very abstract level that rice and beans aren't good for us because they have lectins or whatever. Then, you ought to unleash the biologists, chemists, etc... So, these folks go look at the composition of white rice and see it is pretty clean- mainly starch and probably alright if you can handle starch. Matt Lalonde has already got into the legume thing. I don't think he recommends soy, but he's looked into other beans and it appears most of the lectins get destroyed in the cooking process. A similar thought process goes into eating dairy fat- it is animal fat. If you are particularly sensitive to milk proteins, you just purifiy it more (ghee), but despite it's neolithic origins, it is animal fat and therefore something we can handle pretty well.

So, instead of doing historical research, we need scientific research so we can refine our protocols. We cannot observe the past, nor can we go back into it and rerun while changing only one variable in order to find out if our assumptions are correct. We can, however use our knowledge of the past in order to come up with ideas to test. This is the way forward.

link|flag

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.