Non-industrial diets from a food reward perspective
In 21st century affluent nations, we have unprecedented control over what food crosses our lips. We can buy nearly any fruit or vegetable in any season, and a massive processed food industry has sprung up to satisfy (or manufacture) our every craving. Most people can afford exotic spices and herbs from around the world-- consider that only a hundred years ago, black pepper was a luxury item. But our degree of control goes even deeper: over the last century, kitchen technology such as electric/gas stoves, refrigerators, microwaves and a variety of other now-indispensable devices have changed the way we prepare food at home (Megan J. Elias. Food in the United States, 1890-1945).
To help calibrate our thinking about the role of food reward (and food palatability) in human evolutionary history, I offer a few brief descriptions of contemporary hunter-gatherer and non-industrial agriculturalist diets. What did they eat, and how did they prepare it?
Read more »
Showing posts with label Masai. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Masai. Show all posts
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Monday, October 27, 2008
Saturated Fat and Health: a Brief Literature Review, Part I
Even years ago, when I watched my saturated fat intake, I always had a certain level of cognitive dissonance about it. I knew that healthy non-industrial cultures often consumed large amounts of saturated fat. For example, the Masai of East Africa, who traditionally subsist on extremely fatty milk, blood and meat, do not appear to experience heart attacks. Their electrocardiogram readings are excellent and they have the lowest level of arterial plaque during the time of their lives when they are restricted (for cultural reasons) to their three traditional foods. They get an estimated 33% of their calories from saturated animal fat. Then there are the Pacific islanders, who often eat large amounts of highly saturated coconut. Kitavans get 17% of their calories from saturated fat (Americans get about 10% on average), yet show no trace of heart disease, stroke or overweight. The inhabitants of the island of Tokelau, who I learned about recently, eat more saturated fat than any other culture I'm aware of. They get a whopping 55% of their calories from saturated fat! Are they keeling over from heart attacks or any of the other diseases that kill people in modern societies? Apparently not. So from the very beginning, the theory faces the problem that the cultures consuming the most saturated fat on Earth have an undetectable frequency of heart attacks and other modern non-communicable diseases.
Humans have eaten saturated animal fat since our species first evolved, and historical hunter-gatherers subsisted mostly on animal foods. Our closest recent relatives, neanderthals, were practically carnivores. Thus, the burden of proof is on proponents of the theory that saturated fat is unhealthy.
There have been countless studies on the relationship between saturated fat and health. The first studies were epidemiological. Epidemiological studies involve collecting data from one or more populations and seeing if any specific factors associate with the disease in question. For example, the Framingham Heart study collected data on diet, lifestyle and mortality from various diseases and attempted to connect diseases to lifestyle factors. This type of study is useful for creating hypotheses, but it can only determine associations. For example, it can establish that smokers tend to die more often from heart disease than non-smokers, but it can't determine that smoking is actually the cause of heart disease. This is because multiple factors often travel together. For example, maybe smokers also tend to take care of themselves less in other ways, sleeping less, eating more sugar, etc.
Epidemiological data are often incorrectly used to demonstrate causality. This is a big problem, and it irritates me to no end. There's only one way to show conclusively that a diet or lifestyle factor actually causes something else: a controlled trial. In a controlled trial, researchers break participants into two groups: an intervention group and a control group. If they want to know the effect of saturated fat on health, they will advise the participants in each group to eat different amounts of saturated fat, and keep everything else the same. At the end of the trial, they can determine the effect of saturated fat on health because it was the only factor that differed between groups. In practice, reducing saturated fat also involves either increasing unsaturated fat or decreasing total fat intake, so it's not perfect.
I'm not going to review the epidemiological data because they are contradictory and they are "lesser evidence" compared to the controlled trials that have been conducted. However, I will note that Dr. Ancel Keys' major epidemiological study linking saturated fat consumption to heart disease, the "Seven Countries" study, has been thoroughly discredited due to the omission of contradictory data (read: the other 15 countries where data were available). This was the study that sparked the anti-saturated fat movement. Older epidemiological studies and those conducted internationally tend to find nonexistent or weak links between saturated fat and health problems, while more recent American studies, such as the Nurses' Health study, have sometimes found strong associations. I'll address this phenomenon in another post.
In the next post, I'll get into the meaty data: the controlled trails evaluating the effect of saturated fat on health.
Thanks to Rockies for the CC photo.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
More Masai
I left out one of the juicier tidbits from the last post because it was getting long. Investigators Kang-Jey Ho et al. wanted an explanation for why the Masai didn't have high serum cholesterol despite their high dietary cholesterol intake (up to 2,000 mg per day-- 6.7 times the US FDA recommended daily allowance).
They took 23 male Masai subjects aged 19 to 24 and divided them into two groups. The first group of 11 was the control group, which received a small amount of radioactive cholesterol in addition to a cholesterol-free diet that I will describe below. The second group of 12 was the experimental group, which they fed 2,000 mg cholesterol per day, a small amount of radioactive cholesterol as a tracer, and the exact same cholesterol-free diet as the control group. For the duration of the 24-week trial, the subjects ate the experimental diet exclusively. Here's what it was (in order of calories, descending):
The really interesting thing is that serum cholesterol increased dramatically in both groups. It went from 125 mg/100 mL to over 170 mg/100 mL, despite a large decrease in the saturated fat they were eating. The change took about two weeks to occur, and remained fairly stable for the remainder of the trial.
Both groups also gained weight. In the first week, they gained an average of 3 pounds each. To be fair, the initial gain was probably most water, which is what happens when a person increases their carbohydrate and salt intake. The investigators freaked out and cut their calorie intake by 400 kcal, only allowing them 3,600 kcal per day. Initially, they were voluntarily consuming 4,000 kcal per day. I find that interesting as well. Something tells me they weren't chugging non-dairy creamer because it was so delicious, but because their confused hormones were telling them to EAT.
Even after putting the subjects on calorie restriction (not letting them eat as much as they wanted, by an average of 400 kcal/day), they continued gaining weight. By the end of the study, the 23 subjects had gained an average of 7.8 lbs per person.
To summarize, this is what the investigators saw when they put 23 unfortunate Masai men on a bottom-rung industrially processed diet: elevated cholesterol, hyperphagia (excessive eating), and weight gain. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
They took 23 male Masai subjects aged 19 to 24 and divided them into two groups. The first group of 11 was the control group, which received a small amount of radioactive cholesterol in addition to a cholesterol-free diet that I will describe below. The second group of 12 was the experimental group, which they fed 2,000 mg cholesterol per day, a small amount of radioactive cholesterol as a tracer, and the exact same cholesterol-free diet as the control group. For the duration of the 24-week trial, the subjects ate the experimental diet exclusively. Here's what it was (in order of calories, descending):
- Nondairy coffee creamer (made of corn syrup solids and vegetable oil)
- Beans
- Sugar
- Corn
- Corn oil
- A vitamin pill
The really interesting thing is that serum cholesterol increased dramatically in both groups. It went from 125 mg/100 mL to over 170 mg/100 mL, despite a large decrease in the saturated fat they were eating. The change took about two weeks to occur, and remained fairly stable for the remainder of the trial.
Both groups also gained weight. In the first week, they gained an average of 3 pounds each. To be fair, the initial gain was probably most water, which is what happens when a person increases their carbohydrate and salt intake. The investigators freaked out and cut their calorie intake by 400 kcal, only allowing them 3,600 kcal per day. Initially, they were voluntarily consuming 4,000 kcal per day. I find that interesting as well. Something tells me they weren't chugging non-dairy creamer because it was so delicious, but because their confused hormones were telling them to EAT.
Even after putting the subjects on calorie restriction (not letting them eat as much as they wanted, by an average of 400 kcal/day), they continued gaining weight. By the end of the study, the 23 subjects had gained an average of 7.8 lbs per person.
To summarize, this is what the investigators saw when they put 23 unfortunate Masai men on a bottom-rung industrially processed diet: elevated cholesterol, hyperphagia (excessive eating), and weight gain. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Masai and Atherosclerosis
I've been digging deeper into the health of the Masai lately. A commenter on Chris's blog pointed me to a 1972 paper showing that the Masai have atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries. This interested me so I got my hands on the full text, along with a few others from the same time period. What I found is nothing short of fascinating.
First, some background. Traditional Masai in Kenya and Tanzania are pastoralists, subsisting on fermented cow's milk, meat and blood, as well as traded food in modern times. They rarely eat fresh vegetables. Contrary to popular belief, they are a genetically diverse population, due to the custom of abducting women from neighboring tribes. Many of these tribes are agriculturalists. From Mann et al: "The genetic argument is worthless". This will be important to keep in mind as we interpret the data.
At approximately 14 years old, Masai men are inducted into the warrior class, and are called Muran. For the next 15-20 years, tradition dictates that they eat a diet composed exclusively of cow's milk, meat and blood. Milk is the primary food. Masai cows are not like wimpy American cows, however. Their milk contains almost twice the fat of American cows, more protein, more cholesterol and less lactose. Thus, Muran eat an estimated 3,000 calories per day, 2/3 of which comes from fat. Here is the reference for all this. Milk fat is about 50% saturated. That means the Muran gets 33% of his calories from saturated fat. This population eats more saturated fat than any other I'm aware of.
How's their cholesterol? Remarkably low. Their total serum cholesterol is about half the average American's. I haven't found any studies that broke it down further than total cholesterol. Their blood pressure is also low, and hypertension is rare. Overweight is practically nonexistent. Their electrocardiogram readings show no signs of heart disease. They have exceptionally good endurance, but their grip strength is significantly weaker than Americans of African descent. Two groups undertook autopsies of male Masai to look for artery disease.
The first study, published in 1970, examined 10 males, 7 of which were over 40 years old. They found very little evidence of atherosclerosis, even in individuals over 60. The second study, which is often used as evidence against a high-fat diet, was much more thorough and far more interesting. Mann et al. autopsied 50 Masai men, aged 10 to 65. The single most represented age group was 50-59 years old, at 13 individuals. They found no evidence of myocardial infarction (heart attack) in any of the 50 hearts. What they did find, however, was coronary artery disease. Here's a figure showing the prevalence of "aortic fibrosis", a type of atherosclerotic lesion:
It looks almost binary, doesn't it? What could be causing the dramatic jump in atherosclerosis at age 40? Here's another figure, of total cholesterol (top) and "sudanophilia" (fatty streaks in the arteries, bottom). Note that the Muran period is superimposed (top).
There's clearly a pattern here. Either the Masai men are eating nothing but milk, meat and blood and they're nearly free from atherosclerosis, or they're eating however they please and they have as much atherosclerosis as the average American. There doesn't seem to be much in between.
Here's a quote from the paper that sums it up well:
I know this blog is starting to sound like a broken record, but I'll say it again: you can eat a wide variety of foods and be healthy, except industrial grain products (particularly wheat), sugar, industrial vegetable oil and other processed food. The Masai are just one more example of a group that's healthy when eating a traditional diet.
First, some background. Traditional Masai in Kenya and Tanzania are pastoralists, subsisting on fermented cow's milk, meat and blood, as well as traded food in modern times. They rarely eat fresh vegetables. Contrary to popular belief, they are a genetically diverse population, due to the custom of abducting women from neighboring tribes. Many of these tribes are agriculturalists. From Mann et al: "The genetic argument is worthless". This will be important to keep in mind as we interpret the data.
At approximately 14 years old, Masai men are inducted into the warrior class, and are called Muran. For the next 15-20 years, tradition dictates that they eat a diet composed exclusively of cow's milk, meat and blood. Milk is the primary food. Masai cows are not like wimpy American cows, however. Their milk contains almost twice the fat of American cows, more protein, more cholesterol and less lactose. Thus, Muran eat an estimated 3,000 calories per day, 2/3 of which comes from fat. Here is the reference for all this. Milk fat is about 50% saturated. That means the Muran gets 33% of his calories from saturated fat. This population eats more saturated fat than any other I'm aware of.
How's their cholesterol? Remarkably low. Their total serum cholesterol is about half the average American's. I haven't found any studies that broke it down further than total cholesterol. Their blood pressure is also low, and hypertension is rare. Overweight is practically nonexistent. Their electrocardiogram readings show no signs of heart disease. They have exceptionally good endurance, but their grip strength is significantly weaker than Americans of African descent. Two groups undertook autopsies of male Masai to look for artery disease.
The first study, published in 1970, examined 10 males, 7 of which were over 40 years old. They found very little evidence of atherosclerosis, even in individuals over 60. The second study, which is often used as evidence against a high-fat diet, was much more thorough and far more interesting. Mann et al. autopsied 50 Masai men, aged 10 to 65. The single most represented age group was 50-59 years old, at 13 individuals. They found no evidence of myocardial infarction (heart attack) in any of the 50 hearts. What they did find, however, was coronary artery disease. Here's a figure showing the prevalence of "aortic fibrosis", a type of atherosclerotic lesion:
It looks almost binary, doesn't it? What could be causing the dramatic jump in atherosclerosis at age 40? Here's another figure, of total cholesterol (top) and "sudanophilia" (fatty streaks in the arteries, bottom). Note that the Muran period is superimposed (top).
There's clearly a pattern here. Either the Masai men are eating nothing but milk, meat and blood and they're nearly free from atherosclerosis, or they're eating however they please and they have as much atherosclerosis as the average American. There doesn't seem to be much in between.
Here's a quote from the paper that sums it up well:
We believe... that the Muran escapes some noxious dietary agent for a time. Obviously, this is neither animal fat nor cholesterol. The old and the young Masai do have access to such processed staples as flour, sugar, confections and shortenings through the Indian dukas scattered about Masailand. These foods could carry the hypothetical agent."
I know this blog is starting to sound like a broken record, but I'll say it again: you can eat a wide variety of foods and be healthy, except industrial grain products (particularly wheat), sugar, industrial vegetable oil and other processed food. The Masai are just one more example of a group that's healthy when eating a traditional diet.
Monday, June 9, 2008
What to do if Your Study Contradicts Conventional Wisdom
I just read a recent paper from the British Journal of Sports Medicine, "Daily Energy Expenditure and Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Masai, Ruran and Urban Bantu Tanzanians". The study caught my eye because I think we have a lot to learn from healthy traditionally-living populations worldwide.The Masai have a very unique diet consisting almost exclusively of whole cow's milk, cow's blood and meat. As you might imagine, they eat a lot of fat, a lot of saturated fat and a modest amount of carbohydrate (from lactose). They also have low total cholesterol, low blood pressure, and virtually no overweight. They have been a thorn in the side of the lipid hypothesis for a long time.
The Bantu are an agricultural population that traditionally eat a diet low in fat and high in carbohydrate. Their staples are root vegetables, corn, beans, fish and wild game. The paper also describes a group of urban Bantu, which eats a diet intermediate in fat and carbohydrate. Incidentally, the investigators describe it as a "high-fat diet", despite the fact that the percentage fat is about the same as what Americans and Europeans eat, shamelessly exposing their bias.
The investigators recorded the three groups' diets, activity levels, physical characteristics and various markers of cardiovascular disease risk. Here's what they found: only 3% of Masai were obese, compared to 12% of rural Bantu and 34% of urban Bantu (they'd fit right in here!). The Masai, despite smoking like chimneys, had generally lower CVD risk factors than the other two populations, with the urban Bantu being significantly worse off than the rural Bantu.
Overall, the Masai came out looking really good, with the rural Bantu not too far behind. The urban Bantu look almost as bad as Americans. How do we make sense of these two conflicting facts? 1) The urban Bantu eat an amount of fat and saturated fat that's right in the middle of what the Masai and the rural Bantu eat, yet they seem the most likely to keel over spontaneously. 2) Saturated fat KILLS!! Answer: keep digging until you find something else to blame your results on.
They certainly did find something, and it's the reason the study was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine rather than the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The Masai exercise more than either of the other two groups. I don't have too much trouble believing that. However, the authors used a dirty trick to augment their result: they normalized calorie expenditure to body weight. They present their data as kcal/kg/day. In other words, the fatter you are, the lower your apparent energy expenditure! It makes no sense to me. But it does inflate the apparent exercise of the Masai, simply because of the fact that they're thinner than the other two groups.
Due to this unscrupulous number massaging, here's what they got (data re-plotted by me):
I'm going to try to un-massage the data. Here's what it looks like when I factor bodyweight out of the equation. Calories expended (above resting metabolic rate) is on the Y-axis. The bars look a bit closer together...
.png)
Here's what it looks like when you add back resting metabolic rate. I assumed 1500 kcal/day. This graph is an approximation of their total energy expenditure per day:
.png)
Hmm, the differences keep getting smaller, don't they? I'm not challenging the fact that the Masai exercise more than the other two groups, but I do have a problem with this kind of manipulation of the data in misleading ways.
Their conclusion is that exercise is protecting the Masai from the deadly saturated fats in their diet. A more parsimonious explanation is that saturated fat per se doesn't cause heart disease. It's also more consistent with other healthy cultures that ate high-fat diets like the Inuit, certain Australian aboriginal groups, and some American Indian groups. It's also consistent with the avalanche of recent trials of low-carbohydrate diets, in which people consistently see improvements in weight, blood pressure, and CVD markers, among other things. Not that I have much faith in blood lipid markers of CVD.
My conclusion, from this study and others, is that macronutrients don't determine how healthy a diet is. The specific foods that compose the diet do. The rural Masai are healthy on a high-fat diet, the rural Bantu are fairly healthy on a low-fat, high carbohydrate diet. Only the urban Bantu show a pattern really consistent with the "disease of civilization", despite a daily energy expenditure very similar to the rural Bantu. They're unhealthy because they eat too much processed food: processed vegetable oil, processed grain products, refined sugar.
Thanks to kevinzim for the CC photo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)