Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Daily Low-Carb Support > General Low-Carb
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sat, Aug-26-17, 09:08
alex18092 alex18092 is offline
New Member
Posts: 16
 
Plan: SCD Diet
Stats: 223/199/180 Male 71
BF:
Progress:
Default Mean Genes: From Sex To Money To Food: Taming Our Primal Instincts

Has anyone ready this book "Mean Genes: From Sex To Money To Food: Taming Our Primal Instincts"?

I read it about a year ago, and I found some of the arguments compelling. His main argument, as I understand it, is that our brains were hardwired for a time of scarcity (think caveman days). In those days if you came across something sweet (which was probably rare), having a programing that say "eat up & as much as you can" was probably the correct programing to have.

Nowaday, where sugar is everywhere, that same programing makes it hard to do/eat the right thing.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sun, Aug-27-17, 15:06
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

I didn't read that book. For the hypothesis however, I got a good counter to it.

OK so it's all about evolution, survival and adaptation, right? First is that we are addicted to everything that keeps us alive, so food, water, air, sleep, sex, and so forth. If we weren't addicted to all that, we'd die. We could argue that we have the intellect to figure out that we need food and water, but what about all the other species, how do they manage? Right, so it's an addiction, a physiological mechanism that ensures our survival in spite of absence of intellect. This mechanism works with hormones and enzymes to trigger certain behaviors so we hunt for food, water, a mate, and so forth. The brain is directly controlled by this mechanism. This is why for example that semi-starvation causes neurosis, we're not adapted to go hungry. On the other hand, full starvation doesn't cause neurosis - the same mechanism shuts down hunger - so we can think clearly, ya?

The above is how our physiology works. What about the sugar in fruit, how does that fit in? We could argue that we are also adapted to eat as much sugar as possible for some necessity, but there's a better explanation. The plants that produce fruit full of sugar, they have adapted too. They adapted to produce addictive fruit that will ensure their survival. Those plants that didn't adapt this way, died off or adapted a different way that does not support the need-sugar hypothesis. Fruit is seasonal, there's just not enough to do anything for us in any regards. Bear in mind that the seed is indigestible to us, also an adaptation of the plant to ensure its survival, and even without knowing it's indigestible, we don't eat it cuz it just tastes bad. The fruit fiber is also indigestible to us, no benefit whatsoever to be had there. Basically the only thing digestible is the addictive substance.

So the hypothesis says we're adapted to eat as much sugar as we must through a physiological mechanism that ensures our survival, but the better explanation says that the plants are adapted to produce a substance that takes advantage of our mechanism of survival for their own survival, regardless of our own survival. We could argue that our survival is their survival, of course, cuz if we died from that addictive substance, we wouldn't be there to repeat the experience, no survival for the plant past the first taste, ya? But remember, fruit is seasonal, so dose is unlikely to be of any significance with respect to both our and their survival - we can handle a few fruit once in a while and still survive, and the plants only need that much so they survive.

We could make a parallel with producers of addictive substances. Their survival depends on the addictive property of their product, and that addictive property relies on our physiological mechanism. But it's bad business to kill one's customers, so the dose is carefully measured to ensure survival of those customers for repeat business. Indeed, overdose is typically a result of inconsistent or unreliable or unknown dose, rather than of the substance itself or even of the user. In the case of those plants that produce fruit, it wasn't intentional, it was a product of natural selection. Those plants that produced fruit that was toxic enough to kill, didn't survive. Those plants that produced fruit that wasn't addictive enough, didn't survive either.

We could argue that we use glucose all the time and that's a carb, so that's why we must eat carbs, ya? But the sugar in fruit contains fructose, we don't use that. Instead, we convert it to triglycerides in the liver. Well, if we need to obtain fructose for the purpose of conversion into triglycerides, there's a much more effective way to get it - eat fat - and our liver is fully capable of dealing with fat in all respects, from digestion to absorption to metabolism to storage to conversion into different FFAs or into useful things like cholesterol for example and so forth. Furthermore, eating fat is self-limiting, it's basically impossible to eat too much fat, in spite of being just as addicted to that. The hypothesis is refuted on that point, but it brings up another point - satiety.

We're addicted to food and stuff, so how do we make sure we don't overdo it? Satiety. The same mechanism that ensures we eat something, also ensures that we stop eating it when we've had enough. If something causes us to eat as much as there is rather than as much as we need, this thing bypasses this second part of the mechanism. Food doesn't do that. So, do we actually need to eat as much carbs as we need, or is there something else going on here? Carbs is a drug produced by plants to ensure their survival, regardless of our own, but the mutual adaptation makes it so there's just not enough carbs produced and available to us to kill us. The hypothesis says "today with all that sugar, this mechanism is overwhelmed". Well, no shit, but the hypothesis is wrong in all other respects.

Don't take any of this too seriously, I just made it up as I wrote it.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sun, Aug-27-17, 17:36
alex18092 alex18092 is offline
New Member
Posts: 16
 
Plan: SCD Diet
Stats: 223/199/180 Male 71
BF:
Progress:
Default

Interesting. Thanks for your thoughts. It is always interesting to read different points of view.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Mon, Aug-28-17, 09:01
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,596
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/185/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: Texas
Default

My paraphrasing of Dr. Steven Gundry's idea from The Plant Paradox book I recently read by him: back in paleo days when did you come across sweet taste? Summer. Fruits. (I suppose unless you wanted to fend off wild bees for honey.) Plants want you/animals/birds etc. to eat their ripe fruit to poop out the seed with fertilizer elsewhere to spread baby plants. Fructose from fruits is really good at making you/animals gain weight. His idea is fructose from plant fruits evolved as a win/win situation for you (animals) and plants because we gain fat to survive the long hard winter while spreading their baby seeds to new and better locations than beneath the shade of the parent tree/plant where resources are competed for. So when you taste sweet, in paleo times that could only mean one thing: summer! And winter coming, so eat that fruit fructose and gain that body fat to survive! Problem now of course is fruit/fructose/sugar/sweets are available all year with no food shortage in winter, thus the body thinks it's perpetually summer, so gain that weight! All. Year. Long. The disappointing but likely true part of his theory is that any sweet taste, even from stevia, signals your body it's summer so let's be thinking about fattening up for that winter which will never come. Me, looking at my stevia sweetened low carb dessert. Does this dessert make me look fat? Sigh.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Tue, Aug-29-17, 04:40
alex18092 alex18092 is offline
New Member
Posts: 16
 
Plan: SCD Diet
Stats: 223/199/180 Male 71
BF:
Progress:
Default

That is an interesting thought. I hadn't considered the seasonal impact in the paleo days. That makes a lot of sense to me.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:32.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.