Evolution and Training: An Interview with Dr. William Meller

[Eric K]

And, as I was just reminded, if gluten is such an effective insect repellent, why is all grain siloed with malathion?

Good points, all. If Gluten is so devastating, then how can so many eat it with so little problem? I didn't say that we haven't adapted any kind of tolerance for them, and certainly it wouldn't necessarily lead to diabetes and heart disease for everyone. I think the increasing rates of those disorders in the past 20 years owe more to the increased consumption of fructose and industrial vegetable oils combined with the decreased consumption of protective saturated fat. But I would argue that even a subclinical inflammation over a long period is less than desireable if it's not necessary for you to achieve your caloric needs. You've said yourself that you know wheat makes you fat more so than other foods, and fat and inflammation seem to be very closely related (kind of a chicken and egg argument almost). Certain instances of inflammation are certainly beneficial for the species (hence the whole weight lifting adaptation) but as all food metabolism is already inflammatory why eat what essentially is, at best, high-density junk food and, at worst, an active antagonistic agent? Plus you can look at the "big" evolutionary picture and realize that providing a popular food source for humans was the greatest deal cereal grains could make for their own proliferation. If the goal of evolution is to expand your population then the species that best fits whatever niche can achieve that. So, grains that still produce a subclinical inflammation yet provide lots of calories is a good deal for we lazy humans who got sick of following the herds. And if we've figured out a way to take care of the insect problem for the plants, who says they haven't continued to adapt to their environment along with us (or the insects evolved to resist the defense, again chickens and eggs). Plus there is some level of processing involved in turning wheat into food that reduces it's "toxicity." There are a lot of factors to be sure, and I think that some can tolerate grains a lot better than others, but unless you depend on grains to meet your daily caloric needs, I think that humans are better adapted for a high-animal diet.

There are certainly no absolutes which is why I cringe at the idea of the "Church of Paleo" that some people seem to be attending. Self-experimentation and experience is the best teacher, but I think a worth-while experiment in that process would be to ditch grains, fructose and modern vegetable oils (probably in reverse order of priority in my opinion).

[Mark Rippetoe]

I agree completely. Wheat is a shitty food. But this is no reason to allow the use of poor arguments.

[Eric K]

I agree completely. Wheat is a shitty food. But this is no reason to allow the use of poor arguments.

I agreed that lectins, phytates and gluten are not necessarily very potent pesticides to all people, but I still don't really think that makes it a poor argument to recommend limiting your intake of even a "less potent" pesticide. But I guess that comes down to difference of opinions on the topic, plus I'm not overly concerned with convincing anyone, because what one eats is one's own choice. I am willing to make suggestions based on the idea that "wheat is a shitty food" if someone is looking for advice or it's someone who's well-being I actually care about.

[stickman]

... I think that humans are better adapted for a high-animal diet.

OK, I'm having fun being pedantic here - but the fact remains that the so called "badly adapted" humans eating cereals have beaten the snot out of hunter-gathers so thoroughly over the last 10,000 years that very few hunter-gatherers remain, while the cereal eaters now number in excess of 6 billion. Historically, cereal-eating humans have been far more competitive in terms of survival, fecundity and war-making capability. They may have had to pay a price in terms of average height and musculature, but this is demonstrably not a significant one - they have simply made a very effective trade-off between growing a bit taller or having more kids that survive. So saying they are poorly adapted is not correct in an evolutionary sense.

Now lazy-ass sedentary humans in the developed world have a different set of problems. They do not have to be active. They don't have to plough the fields or get the harvest in, and can eat cheap high-carb shit all day long. THESE humans may have an individual interest in modifying their diet to cope with this situation. But there is really NO evidence at all that going "paleo" offers an advantage in terms of passing on your genes, although it may possibly make you happier and healthier in the long term, or boost your performance if you have athletic interests.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I agreed that lectins, phytates and gluten are not necessarily very potent pesticides to all people, but I still don't really think that makes it a poor argument to recommend limiting your intake of even a "less potent" pesticide.

My point is that they are not pesticides to ANYBODY. A pesticide kills pests. They may be toxic to a certain small group of people, and even slightly toxic (dose response, all that stuff) to most everybody. But there are better explanations for that than the toxicity is a defense mechanism, especially since it obviously doesn't defend.

[Eric K]

My point is that they are not pesticides to ANYBODY. A pesticide kills pests. They may be toxic to a certain small group of people, and even slightly toxic (dose response, all that stuff) to most everybody. But there are better explanations for that than the toxicity is a defense mechanism, especially since it obviously doesn't defend.

Fair enough. You're right, there are better arguments for not eating wheat.

[tertius]

OK, I'm having fun being pedantic here - but the fact remains that the so called "badly adapted" humans eating cereals have beaten the snot out of hunter-gathers so thoroughly over the last 10,000 years that very few hunter-gatherers remain, while the cereal eaters now number in excess of 6 billion. Historically, cereal-eating humans have been far more competitive in terms of survival, fecundity and war-making capability. They may have had to pay a price in terms of average height and musculature, but this is demonstrably not a significant one - they have simply made a very effective trade-off between growing a bit taller or having more kids that survive. So saying they are poorly adapted is not correct in an evolutionary sense.

Now lazy-ass sedentary humans in the developed world have a different set of problems. They do not have to be active. They don't have to plough the fields or get the harvest in, and can eat cheap high-carb shit all day long. THESE humans may have an individual interest in modifying their diet to cope with this situation. But there is really NO evidence at all that going "paleo" offers an advantage in terms of passing on your genes, although it may possibly make you happier and healthier in the long term, or boost your performance if you have athletic interests.

The dominance of agricultural peoples over hunter-gatherers is as much about disease tolerance and technological advantages as it as about anything else. However, hunter-gatherer types lived longer, healthier lives than their agricultural counterparts (for the most part). Which is the relevant bit, as far as this discussion goes. Most people aren't interested in this discussion don't care whether or not eating a diet of grain can increase their fecundity as a culture, so they can wage more effective war on their neighbors. They're interested in increasing the quality of their lives.

Thus, is wheat a shitty food? In some respects, yes, and for some folks more than others.
I'm of Northern European descent, and i tolerate grains, dairy, and lack of sunlight extremely well, but that's not the case for everyone, and they should figure out what works for them, and what doesn't. Paleo dietary ideas are a tool to help do that.

[jgraham0331]

The way I see it, it's your diet and your body. If you eat grains by the pound and are healthy and strong, then why change what you're doing? However, if you're doing everything you know and it's not working then why not try what Dr. Meller is suggesting?

[Eric K]

The way I see it, it's your diet and your body. If you eat grains by the pound and are healthy and strong, then why change what you're doing? However, if you're doing everything you know and it's not working then why not try what Dr. Meller is suggesting?

Absolutely. That's what makes freedom great, I just wish (as much good as "wishing" is) obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other chronic diseases didn't affect the economy so much. (No, I'm not blaming wheat/grains per se, but I am indicting diet in the widespread prevelance of such diseases, and I'll throw my hat in the "wheat is a shitty food" camp.) Eat whatever you one, I'm not a fanatic and I still eat shitty food when the mood strikes, but I also don't have any metabolic disorders. I just think that it's a good option to consider if you ARE looking to improve your health.

[tertius]

Absolutely. That's what makes freedom great, I just wish (as much good as "wishing" is) obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other chronic diseases didn't affect the economy so much. (No, I'm not blaming wheat/grains per se, but I am indicting diet in the widespread prevelance of such diseases, and I'll throw my hat in the "wheat is a shitty food" camp.) Eat whatever you one, I'm not a fanatic and I still eat shitty food when the mood strikes, but I also don't have any metabolic disorders. I just think that it's a good option to consider if you ARE looking to improve your health.

Anyway, say what you want about wheat, but it's nowhere near as shitty a food as corn/maize.