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 > Paleolithic & Neanderthin
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sat, Dec-21-19, 10:06
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,041
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default Hunter/gatherer/farmer children bmr

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...91218153543.htm

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/12/eaax1065

Okay--I included a sciencedaily link because that's where I got to the study itself from. But I found the article goofy and less succint than the abstract, so that's what I'm copy/pasting here....

Quote:
Abstract
Childrenís metabolic energy expenditure is central to evolutionary and epidemiological frameworks for understanding variation in human phenotype and health. Nonetheless, the impact of a physically active lifestyle and heavy burden of infectious disease on child metabolism remains unclear. Using energetic, activity, and biomarker measures, we show that Shuar forager-horticulturalist children of Amazonian Ecuador are ~25% more physically active and, in association with immune activity, have ~20% greater resting energy expenditure than children from industrial populations. Despite these differences, Shuar childrenís total daily energy expenditure, measured using doubly labeled water, is indistinguishable from industrialized counterparts. Trade-offs in energy allocation between competing physiological tasks, within a constrained energy budget, appear to shape childhood phenotypic variation (e.g., patterns of growth). These trade-offs may contribute to the lifetime obesity and metabolic health disparities that emerge during rapid economic development.


Increased metabolic rate due to increased immune activity is interesting--obvious implications/avenues to look at when it comes to the gut biome, immune activity and energy expenditure. If you wander around looking at leptin studies, a bit of reference jumping gets you to interactions with the immune system fairly quickly.

The physical activity bit is interesting as well. Assuming that first bit was interesting.

Quote:
Physical activity. We estimated the energy cost of physical activity using the ratio of AEE to accelerometer-measured body movement among the Shuar sample. This approach assumes that AEE among the Shuar is entirely (or almost entirely) reflective of musculoskeletal activity, whereas AEE for the U.S./U.K. cohort is inflated by greater diurnal fluctuation in REE. For Shuar children, the ratio of AEE/mean accelerometer counts per minute (CPM; Table 1) yields 0.58 kcal/CPM. Mean body mass in the U.S./U.K. sample is 14% greater than the Shuar sample (Table 1), indicating that that the cost of movement for U.S./U.K. children should be 14% greater or 0.66 kcal/CPM. Last, we assumed that the efficiency of movement might be up to 5% greater for the Shuar due to their greater habitual physical activity (24), which yields a final U.S./U.K. cost of movement of 0.70 kcal/CPM. Multiplying this ratio by observed mean CPM for the industrial sample (379 CPM) yields a cost of physical activity of 264 kcal/day for the industrial TEE model.



Wall of text--Shuar children have total energy expenditure comparable to the more industrialized children they're compared to here. But resting energy expenditure is higher, and they're also more physically active. T Nation has a lot of articles suggesting mixing up endurance exercise--as we get better at an exercise, we do it more efficiently--burn less calories. Stay inept to burn more calories. So Shuar children are more efficient, and have less mass to move about--so they burn less calories when active.

What I didn't like about the sciencedaily article. The summary wasn't so bad;

Quote:
Forager-horticulturalist children in the Amazon rainforest do not spend more calories in their everyday lives than children in the United States, but they do spend calories differently. That finding provides clues for understanding and reversing global trends in obesity and poor metabolic health, according to a new study.



Leaves room for subtleties. There might be something about how they spend their calories, about the metabolic activity going on, that contributes to their different, less fat phenotype. Or you could just read the headline;

Quote:
Eating too much -- not exercising too little -- may be at core of weight gain



And here;

Quote:
A key takeaway of the study is that rapid change in diet and increasing energy intake, not decreasing physical activity or infectious disease burden, may most directly underlie the chronic weight gain driving the global rise of obesity. However, "Exercise remains critically important for health and for weight management given its effects on appetite, muscle mass, cardiopulmonary function and many other factors," Urlacher said. "Our results don't suggest otherwise. Everyone should meet recommended daily physical activity levels."


Better than the headline--but still. Immune system burned more calories? Why didn't the children just have larger appetites, and eat to make up for it? Or were they hungry all the time, and not eating to appetite? Saying, well, resting energy expenditure goes down in industrialized children--but it's made up for by increased physical exercise energy expenditure in the face of reduced activity--well, I don't know. Couldn't you as easily say that the children eat more, but that's made up for by increases in energy expenditure during activity--and instead ascribe the increased body weight to the decrease in basal metabolism? Or stated another way--maybe US children eat more, but if it weren't for the decrease in metabolic rate, at least relative to the Shuar children, this wouldn't be causing obesity.

After all this, I do think it's likely the food. But sheer available calories is a vast oversimplification.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sat, Dec-21-19, 10:46
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 615
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 200/180/175 Female 5 feet 6 inches
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: Prescott, Arizona, USA
Default

Who are the Shuar of the Amazon? Just reading about their food intake and calorie expenditure does not place this study in context for me.

What exactly is meant by "Forager-horticulturalist" and what percentage of time is devoted to each?

This study provides less detail on food and calorie consumption that the early studies of the Masai in Africa who were completely dependent upon their cattle as their food source.

Thanks for posting this study - it leave me with more questions than answers.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sat, Dec-21-19, 12:28
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,041
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

The study does give some numbers--how many meals per week have fish, foraged, hunted, or shopped (some carby foods from town) items in them. Garden crops are given as the most common food item. I think a rough idea of calories is had from labeled water studies mentioned. These are growing children, so hopefully they're not in some sort of calorie surplus, but growth is slow enough that in non-obese children calories burned should at least give a rough sort of idea of what's eaten over time--the two should very roughly match.

For time spent hunting fishing etc. that's given as number of days per week where the activity occurs, but I don't see it broken into hours.

The author says he's spent 25 months with these people since 2011. There I ask, which months? Earlier Inuit studies tended to be in the summer, for obvious reasons. The most convenient times of the year might not give the full story. Some peoples are seasonally fatter and leaner over the course of the year, this would have some effect on both bmr and energy burned during exercise, if you look at some of Rudy Leibel's leptin studies. For that matter I imagine North American children might measure a bit different during and after plum pudding season.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sat, Dec-21-19, 14:29
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 615
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 200/180/175 Female 5 feet 6 inches
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: Prescott, Arizona, USA
Default

So they are not an isolated tribe living in a forest environment. They live near a town. Do both boys and girls hunt and fish - or only boys. In my experience, there is a clear division of labor by gender.

Anthropologists do live with the Inuit in the far north for months - not just during the summer which is about 2 months. Otherwise how would they know the diets was primarily blubber during the winter.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sat, Dec-21-19, 16:06
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,619
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/214/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

The girls are likely to fill the horticulurist title...gardening or collecting vegetation, fruit, and nuts is as physically difficult as hunting. And the girls are likely to give a hand in prepping and cooking the meat.

Proocuring your own food and cooking it requires must physical energy.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sun, Dec-22-19, 10:16
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,041
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benay
So they are not an isolated tribe living in a forest environment. They live near a town. Do both boys and girls hunt and fish - or only boys. In my experience, there is a clear division of labor by gender.

Anthropologists do live with the Inuit in the far north for months - not just during the summer which is about 2 months. Otherwise how would they know the diets was primarily blubber during the winter.




I said earlier studies--I'm talking the 20's. They still would know from anecdotes. Also I'm talking from the sort of medical literature I've seen from the time, I don't deny the work of people like Steffanson who lived among them, sometimes through all seasons. I had more in mind studies where blood and urine samples were take, ketones and blood glucose etc. analyzed. Anyways, just conjecture when applied to the Shuar, not something I'd assume to be true, but a question to be asked.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Tue, Dec-24-19, 08:08
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 615
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 200/180/175 Female 5 feet 6 inches
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: Prescott, Arizona, USA
Default

Remember - medical literature is peer reviewed.
Not all reviewers are dispassionate - they makes decisions based upon their biases, not necessarily the science - note all the low carb researchers who complain about not getting published because their work does not fit the mainstream.

Better resources for indigenous diet would come from anthropologists who have no ax to grind on diet. Especially in the early days when anthropologists actually went out in the field and lived with their research subject for years before publishing
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Tue, Dec-24-19, 08:39
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,041
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

I was just making a point about field observation of diet and bmr being season sensitive. Not a criticism about the general usefulness of medical literature versus anthropology.

In this case, I was talking about bmr and the possibility that if their calorie intake or body weight fluctuates seasonally, whether they're in the fat or the lean season might have an effect on their bmr.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Tue, Dec-24-19, 10:50
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 615
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 200/180/175 Female 5 feet 6 inches
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: Prescott, Arizona, USA
Default

No way to know, is there Teaser.
Doubt seriously that anyone has studied that particular question in any field. Especially in the '20s
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Tue, Dec-24-19, 11:00
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 615
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 200/180/175 Female 5 feet 6 inches
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: Prescott, Arizona, USA
Default

Today's Inuit, in the far north, as you know Teaser, are more likely to live in towns - especially during the winter - going out to hunt periodically - but mostly eating the food from the local store which is pretty high carb.

During the summer months, they go out on the land to hunt, fish and gather vegetation. I would assume that they would lose weight in the summer switching back to a purely low carb diet. Makes for a yo yo diet existence.

The doctoral dissertation of Dr Nancy Edgecombe may have more information for you. Since she is the nurse in charge of Inuit health, she might be able to answer your question. She is on facebook if you have access to that platform.
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 05:00.


Copyright © 2000-2020 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.