Re:Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?
by collyw on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @03:10PM
(#12600382)
The reason I don't really buy into the paleo theory (yet) is that people have lived in all parts of the world, with vastly varying diets. I haven't seen any conclusive scientific evidence on it yet (to be fair I haven't been searching).
Intermittent fasting would be something that I imagine that most humans experienced wherever they lived however, and rat studies seem promising.
Re:Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?
by bitstein on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @05:40PM
(#12601579)
> people have lived in all parts of the world, with vastly varying diets
Yes, though all of them ate animal products and highly valued various animal fats.
That being said, we can find evidence of people eating all-meat diets in every corner of the globe, and often times if there were more agricultural people nearby, the carnivores were healthier and stronger (such as the Masai vs. the Kikuyu, the Sami vs. southern agricultural Swedes, etc.). Just because people were healthy eating one type of food does not mean they could have been even healthier eating another food if they had access to it.
Re:Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?
by dashoffset on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @07:42PM
(#12602240)
Paleo diet is not necessarily Keto, though.
The paradox is that keto diets, in the short term, seem to have a lot of great health benefits, yet all the blue zone diets are carb rich. My gut feeling is that for most people, the optimal diet in terms of health would be primarily high carb diet (with an emphasis on fermented foods and legumes), with occasional periods of keto dieting.