Dr. Murray's Newsletter

[Guest guest]

Doctor Murray's Newsletter | Natural Facts For May 7, 2003

1:9:2003

Human Nutrition - An Evolutionary Perspective

 

In order to answer the question - What is a healthy diet? - I think that it is

important to first take a look at what our body is designed for. Basically, is

the human body designed to eat plant foods, animal foods, or both? Respectively,

are we herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores? The answer is quite

straightforward. While the human gastrointestinal tract is capable of digesting

both animal and plant foods, there are indications that it can accommodate plant

foods much easier than the harder to digest animal foods. Specifically, our

teeth are composed of twenty molars which are perfect for crushing and grinding

plant foods along with eight front incisors which are well-suited for biting

into fruits and vegetables. Only our front four canine teeth are designed for

meat eating. Our jaws swing both vertically to tear and laterally to crush,

while carnivores' jaws only swings vertically. Additional evidence to support

the body's preference for plant foods is the long length of the human intestinal

tract. Carnivores typically have a short bowel while herbivores have a bowel

length proportionally comparable to humans. Thus, the human bowel length favors

plant foods.

 

A look at our closest wild relatives

 

To answer the question what humans should eat, many researchers look to other

primates, such as chimpanzees, monkeys, and gorillas. Non-human wild primates

are also omnivores - or as often described herbivores and opportunistic

carnivores. They eat mainly fruits and vegetables but may also eat small

animals, lizards, and eggs if given the opportunity. The gorilla and the

orangutan eat only 1 and 2%, respectively, animal foods as a percentage of total

calories. The remainder of their diet is from plant foods. Since humans are

between the weight of the gorilla and orangutan, it has been suggested that

humans are designed to eat around 1.5% of their diet as animal foods. Most

Americans derive well over 50% of their calories from animal foods.

 

While most primates eat a considerable amount of fruit in their diet, it is

critical to point out that the cultivated fruit in American supermarkets is far

different than the highly nutritious wild fruits these animals rely on. Wild

fruits have a slightly higher protein content and a higher content of certain

essential vitamins and minerals while cultivated fruits tend to be higher in

sugars. Cultivated fruits are therefore very tasty to humans, but because they

have a higher sugar composition and also lack the fibrous pulp and multiple

seeds found in wild fruit that slow down sugar digestion and absorption of

sugars, the cultivated fruits raise blood sugar levels much more quickly than

their wild counterpart.1

 

Wild primates not only fill up on fruit, but also other highly nutritious plant

foods. As a result, wild primates weighing 1/10 the amount of a typical human

ingest nearly 10 times the level of vitamin C and much higher amounts of many

other vitamins and minerals. There are other differences in the wild primate

diet that are also important to point out such as a higher ratio of

alpha-linolenic acid - the essential omega-3 fatty acid - compared to linoleic

acid - the essential omega-6 fatty acid.

 

TABLE 1. Estimated mineral intakes of wild monkeys and humans

MineralTotal daily intake

7 kg adult monkeyRDA for adult maleCalcium, mg4571800Phosphorus,

mg728800Potassium, mg64191600-2000Sodium, mg182500Magnesium, mg1323350Iron,

mg38.510Manganese, mg18.22.0-5.0Copper, mg2.81.5-3.0

Hunter-gatherer diets

 

Determining what humans are best suited for may not be as simple as looking at

the diet of wild primates. Humans have some structural and physiological

differences compared to apes. The key difference may be a larger, more

metabolically active brain. In fact, it has been theorized that a shift in

dietary intake to more animal foods may have produced the stimulus for brain

growth. The shift itself was probably the result of limited food availability

forcing early humans to hunt grazing mammals such as antelope and gazelle.

Archeological data supports this association - brains of humans started to grow

and be more developed at about the same time as there is more evidence of animal

bones being butchered with stone tools at early villages.

 

While improved dietary quality alone cannot fully explain why human brains grew,

it definitely appears to have played a critical role. With bigger brain, early

humans were able to engage in more complex social behavior, which led to

improved foraging and hunting tactics, which in turn led to even higher quality

food intake fostering additional brain evolution.

 

Data from anthropologists looking at evidence from hunter-gatherer cultures are

providing much insight as to what humans are designed to eat.2 However, it is

very important to point out that these groups were not entirely free to

determine their diets.3 Instead their diets were molded as a result of what was

available to them. For example, the diet of the Inuit Eskimos is far different

from the Australian aborigines. It may not be appropriate to answer the question

" What should humans eat? " simply by looking at these studies. Nonetheless, here

is something important to point out: whether a hunter-gatherer community relied

on animal or plant foods the rate of diseases of civilization such as heart

disease and cancer is extremely low.

 

It should also be pointed out that the meat that our ancestors consumed was much

different than the meat we find in the supermarkets today. Domesticated animals

have always had higher fat levels than their wild counterpart, but the desire

for tender meat has led to the breeding of cattle which produce meat with a fat

content of 25-30% or higher compared to a fat content of lower than 4% for

free-living animals or wild game. In addition, the type of fat is considerably

different. Domestic beef contains primarily saturated fats and virtually

undetectable amounts of omega-3 fatty acids. In contrast, the fat of wild

animals contains over 5 times more polyunsaturated fat per gram and has good

amounts of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids as well.

 

What does all this mean?

 

Basically it means that humans appear to be better suited to a diet composed

primarily of plant foods. That does not mean that everyone should become a

vegetarian, but rather we should stress plant-based foods such as vegetables,

fruits, grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds over animal foods in the diet. This

contention is supported by the tremendous amount of evidence showing that

deviating from a predominantly plant-based diet is a major factor in the

development of heart disease, cancer, strokes, arthritis, and many other chronic

degenerative disease. It is now the recommendation of many health and medical

organizations that the human diet should focus primarily on etc.

 

The Government and Nutrition Education

 

Throughout the years various governmental organizations have published dietary

guidelines, but it has been the recommendations of the United States Department

of Agriculture (USDA) which have become the most widely known. In 1956, the USDA

published " Food for Fitness - A Daily Food Guide. " This became popularly known

as the Basic Four Food Groups. The Basic Four was composed of:

 

The Milk Group - milk, cheese, ice cream, and other milk-based foods.

The Meat Group - meat, fish, poultry, eggs, with dried legumes and nuts as

alternatives.

The Fruit and Vegetable Group.

The Breads and Cereals Group.

 

 

One of the major problems with the Basic Four Food Groups model is that it

graphically suggests that the food groups are equal in health value. The result

- over consumption of animal products, dietary fat, refined carbohydrates, and

insufficient consumption of fiber-rich foods like fruits, vegetables, and

legumes. This in turn has resulted in diet being responsible for many premature

deaths, chronic diseases, and increased health care costs.

 

As the Basic Four Food Groups became outdated, various other governmental, as

well as medical, organizations developed guidelines of their own designed to

either reduce a specific chronic degenerative disease like cancer and heart

disease or reduce the risk for all chronic diseases.

 

In an attempt to create a new model in nutrition education, the United States

Department of Agriculture first published the " Eating Right Pyramid " in 1992.

Since that time it has received harsh criticisms from numerous experts and other

organizations. One big question consumers may want to ask' " Is it appropriate to

have the USDA making these recommendations? " After all, the USDA serves two

somewhat conflicting roles: (1) it represents the food industry and (2) it is in

charge of educating consumers about nutrition. Many people believe that the

pyramid was more weighted towards dairy products, red meat, and breads due to

influence of the dairy, beef, and grain farming and processing industries. In

other words, the pyramid was not designed as a way to improve the health of

Americans but rather promote the USDA agenda of supporting multinational

agra-foods giants.

 

One of the main criticisms of the Eating Right Pyramid is that is does not

stress strongly enough the importance of quality food choices. For example, the

bottom of the pyramid represents the foods that the USDA thinks should make up

the bulk of your diet: the Bread, Cereal, Rice, and Pasta Group. At 6-11

servings a day from this group and you are supposedly on your way to a healthier

life. What the pyramid doesn't tell you, though, is that you are setting

yourself up for insulin resistance, obesity, and adult onset diabetes if you

consistently make poor choices in this important category. The Eating Right

Pyramid does not take into consideration the glycemic index of foods. The

glycemic index tells us how quickly blood sugar levels will rise after eating a

certain type of food. If we take a quick look at the glycemic indices of some of

the foods that the pyramid is directing Americans to eat more of it is easy to

see the problem.

 

A New Food Pyramid

 

It is quite now that the USDA Food Pyramid is wrong. In fact, some believe that

it has been proven a dangerous and misleading dietary guide that has contributed

greatly to the growing problems of obesity and type 2 diabetes. Different

medical organizations are offering their own version, so I would like to do the

same. With the help of Michael Lyon, M.D., I have created " The Optimal Health

Food Pyramid. "

 

 

 

If you compare this pyramid to the USDA's you will notice some clear

differences. Our version incorporates the best from two of the most healthful

diets ever studied - the traditional Mediterranean diet and the traditional

Asian diet. These diets have also been shown to be protective against heart

disease and cancer. Our pyramid also provides additional recommendations for

foundational supplement and lifestyle components. It graphically illustrates

" What is a healthy diet? " and represents the current evidence on what humans are

designed to eat for optimal health.

 

 

Key References:

 

Milton K. Nutritional characteristics of wild primate foods: do the diets of

our closest living relatives have lessons for us? Nutrition 1999;15:488-98.

Cordain L, Miller JB, Eaton SB, et al. Plant-animal subsistence ratios and

macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets. Am J Clin

Nutr 2000;71:682-92.

Milton K. Hunter-gatherer diets-a different perspective. Am J Clin Nutr

2000;71:665-7.

 

 

 

We respect your online privacy. If you prefer not to receive any further e-mails

from us, please Thank you.

 

© 2003 www.doctormurray.com

 

 

 

The complete " Whole Body " Health line consists of the " AIM GARDEN TRIO "

Ask About Health Professional Support Series: AIM Barleygreen

 

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/AIM.html

 

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.