And now for something completely different

Note: before anyone pooh-poohs this article for being in a blog mostly about weather and climate, note the description on the masthead. Note also that I have recently experienced cancer in my family as I’m sure many readers have at some time, therefore it is relevant to me, and may be helpful to others, and that’s all that matters. – Anthony

Guest post by David Archibald

Before starting out in climate science in 2006, my main hobby was cancer research. To that end, I had co-invented a cancer drug with two professors from Purdue University, Professor Jim Morre and his wife Professor Dorothy Morre. I went on to lodge a patent on a benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) drug myself. I still operate in that space. Early in that journey, I was given the draft manuscript of a book on how isoflavones from soy and other legumes modulate the human female hormone system.

That was in 1998. The manuscript had been written by Dr Graham Kelly who had founded a company to commercialise isoflavone supplementation in men and women. Dr Kelly’s journey in cancer research started in the 1980s when a friend with bowel cancer asked him to look into the science of it. Dr Kelly was intrigued by the epidemiological differences in cancer rates between populations. For example, Japanese who migrate to the US go to the US breast cancer rate in a generation. The US breast cancer rate is five times the Japanese breast cancer rate. The difference in cancer rate is not genetic, it is obviously dietary. So what is the difference in diet that is causing the difference in cancer incidence? A big difference is isoflavone consumption. Amongst the Japanese, it is an average of 40 mg per day. The US average is 3 mg per day.

In Western countries, breast cancer and prostate cancer have the same incidence. In women, 11% get diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime and 5% die of it. In men, 11% get diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lifetime and 5% die of it. There are very big epidemiological differences in prostate cancer rates. As the following graph shows, the Vietnamese prostate cancer rate is one fortieth of the Western prostate cancer rate:

clip_image002

Defeating the scourge of a lot of common cancers is as simple as changing your diet. It is a bit like Vitamin C. If you don’t get any Vitamin C in your diet, you die of scurvy within three years. Pigs and dogs make their own Vitamin C, and presumably some precursor ape to humans had the ability to make it. Humans must have lost the ability for an evolutionary advantage. There are probably a large number of other plant molecules which we evolved to rely upon in our diet. We might not die in the near term if we don’t get them in our diet, but we suffer an increased incidence of degenerative diseases if we don’t. With respect to the dietary components that might cause the low Vietnamese prostate cancer rate, the national dish of Vietnam is called pho. It is a bowl of noodles and meat with three side dishes – bean sprouts, chillis and mint. The anticancer effect would be the result of synergistic blocking of the tNOX molecule on the external membrane of cancer cells by sulforaphane from the bean sprouts with capsaicin from the chilli peppers, stopping the overproduction of anti-apoptotic proteins and allowing the death receptors to trigger the apoptotic cascade of the caspases.

Back to Dr Kelly’s book, “Hormones with Harmony”. It is 70,000 words and goes into highly readable detail on how the daughter metabolites of isoflavones become human hormones in the body. They then become very useful in evening out the peaks and troughs of the body’s estrogenic hormones: estradiol, estrone and estriol. The book goes into detail on how the plant-derived hormones are beneficial in pms, mastalgia, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, menopausal symptoms, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, cataracts, senile dementia and breast cancer. Without being overly technical, it does not talk down to its readers. Earlier this year, I undertook to get it published and it is now available on Kindle for $5 per copy. I do recommend it.

Further to the subject of prostate cancer, there are a number of plant molecules that have an effect on it and BPH. All cancers have tNOX molecules on their external membranes. tNOX is the tumour variant of cNOX, or normal constituent NOX. No plant molecules bind to cNOX but a number bind to tNOX. tNOX has two binding sites. If both are bound to simultaneously, the effect is synergistic. For example, the combination of sulforaphane with capsaicin has twenty times the effect of sulforaphane alone. Another example of synergism is curcumin from turmeric with piperine from black pepper.

David Archibald

December 2012

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 1 vote
Article Rating
208 Comments
Gamecock
December 13, 2012 3:25 am

E.M.Smith says:
December 12, 2012 at 6:14 pm
@Gamecock:
Depends a bit on your personal ‘gut length’. I have a long one, so digest plants better. A friend had a very short one and what came out was a lot like what went in (expecially corn… he didn’t chew much either 😉
But generally, yes, we’re evolved toward cooked food. We’ll still get some out of the raw stuff (as we started from that pole) but not enough for full time…
===============================================================
This is seriously wrong. We have not evolved – or devolved – to anything. Our digestive abilities with cellulose date back 400,000,000 years.
“No vertebrate can digest the cell wall unassisted”
http://www.amjbot.org/content/93/10/1531.full

Khwarizmi
December 13, 2012 3:43 am

[sorry – can’t promote that here – mod]
You can’t promote what the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services owns a patent on?
Someone else mentioned THC: that post got through.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/12/and-now-for-something-completely-different/#comment-1171408
Interesting.
I also mentioned DiChloroAcetate (DCA). and gave a link to “CHEAP SAFE DRUG KILLS MOST CANCERS” in New Scientist ,explaining a long held “assumption” that held back cancer research for decades, and the role of mitochondria in apotosis (suicide) of mutant cells.
You can’t “promote” that here? Really?
Even though not a single mention of a cancer mechanism of a link to optimistic research amongst all the comments?
And my comment to E.M Smith, regarding L-Cysteine (the standard treatment for acetaminophen poisoning),which also shows promise in preventing a variety of cancers.
You couldn’t “promote” that here either?
Is this just a snake oil show?
The cancer industry is also no interested in demonstrated treatments that can be produced for a few cents. Shameful.

ecliptic
December 13, 2012 6:10 am

Iodine consumption is 75 times higher in Japanese diet versus US … Competing toxins bromide and fluoride block iodine uptake and build up in the glands. As extreme sugar consumption makes an acidic cancer-favorable environment in the body the severe deficiency of iodine interferes with glands doing what they do.
http://www.iodine-resource.com/

krischel
December 13, 2012 6:29 am

@E.M.Smith:”For any reasonably modest period of time, a load of carbs is not hard to deal with for a relatively normal metabolism, well fed on normal foods. ”
Agreed, but only about 25% of the population has a “relatively normal metabolism”, and even for those, the unseen deleterious effects (cholesterol profiles, cancers, alzheimer’s, etc) can still come and haunt you.
Put another way, if you’re overweight or type 2 diabetic, you simply don’t have a “normal” metabolism, and the proper treatment is carbohydrate restriction.

gnomish
December 13, 2012 6:44 am

e.m.smith:
your response is a hodge-podge of inapplicable generalities. you’ve lapsed into mannian cya. you do that occasionally. it’s why i no longer frequent your place.
your sci fi fantasy might make a good script for The Day After The Day After Tomorrow
i flag your content as seriously misleading.
http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/GM/PDF/GMquestions.pdf
the cry protein is on a plasmid.
annealing doesn’t happen in acidic conditions.
that bacterium is everywhere and we’ve coevolved.
you could make a more credible case against polio vaccine.

Gail Combs
December 13, 2012 6:51 am

E.M.Smith says:
December 12, 2012 at 10:38 pm
….GMOs scare the heck out of me…..
___________________________________
Amen to that and thanks for more info.
I do not like the fact that Monsanto’s lawyer, Mike Taylor while working in the FDA got a GMO = Natural and therefore no testing required (or labeling needed) passed. I was also aware that Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs Does Happen
Like you I have no problem with the concept of GMOs but I do have a problem with the lack of ethics involved.
For what it is worth, I found the amount and type of carbs as well as what else I eat with them mattered when I was young.. Once I got older I got more and more sensitive to carbs and now I keep them to a minimum if I want to feel good. If I slip off the low-carb diet I feel rotten for at least a day no matter what I eat.
The type of carb is important too. Brown rice and beans like chick peas I can tolerate in small doses but not anything with refined flour or sugar.
I also think it depends on the person. Arthritis for example comes in various flavors. Some people are helped by glucosamine and chondroitin and some are not. Therefore trial results are mixed. My arthritis is mainly from wear & tear and glucosamine and chondroitin got me off painkillers and mobile again. Others I know have also been helped by it while still others have not.

Arthritis Foundation Statement on the Glucosamine/chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial
The long-awaited results of the Glucosamine/chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial (GAIT) have now been published in the New England Journal of Medicine. This 24-week study was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of glucosamine and chondroitin in the management of pain in knee osteoarthritis…
Key findings of the study:
* The more severe the pain, the better the response. People with moderate-to-severe knee OA pain experienced 25 percent greater pain relief than those taking other treatments. Only a small number of people – 22 percent of all study participants – were in the moderate-to-severe subgroup. Further studies to better understand and confirm the benefit in this group of people are needed.
* The combination is important. Even among the moderate-to-severe group, the improvement in pain was only observed in people receiving the glucosamine-chondroitin combination therapy; no significant benefit was detected with glucosamine or chondroitin alone.
* No benefit was observed in people with mild knee OA pain….
* Side effects were minimal. No differences in adverse events were observed between the study groups….

December 13, 2012 7:01 am

E.M.Smith says:
December 12, 2012 at 10:38 pm
@Gunga Din:
……….Does that help?
======================================
Yes, thanks.

J. Bob
December 13, 2012 7:47 am

If I remember correctly, one of the 1st links of colon rectal cancer was to diets was in east Africa,many years ago, There a lot of fibrous food is eaten.
In looking at the old family photos, >50 yrs. ago, we noticed how scrawny, people looked. Even the school photos. Going shopping today there seems to be an entirely different picture.
One thing that also developed as my wife & I got older, was that we discovered meals made from scratch tasted so much better, along with a taste for vegetables, breads & fruits, & a noticeable decline for sugary foods..We wondered if nature was telling us to cut down on some foods, for more nutritious ones. . .

Gail Combs
December 13, 2012 8:08 am

Gamecock says:
December 13, 2012 at 3:25 am
….This is seriously wrong. We have not evolved – or devolved – to anything. Our digestive abilities with cellulose date back 400,000,000 years.
“No vertebrate can digest the cell wall unassisted”
http://www.amjbot.org/content/93/10/1531.full
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As your link points out:

….The three digestive systems are the hindgut fermenters (HGFs) with relatively fast and variable gut passage rates and the foregut fermenters (FGFs), which are of two types: (1) the ruminants, with relatively controlled gut passage rates, which by regurgitating the food allow voluntary repetitive chewing of ingested food and (2) the non-ruminants, which can only chew the food at ingestion….
In small HGFs, which include many rodents and folivorous marsupials, there is selective retention of small particles in a part of the gut, the caecum, where fermentation of the cell wall by bacteria takes place…. Periodically, the caecal contents, rich in nitrogenous bacteria, are expelled, and the animal may consume the pellet and digest the bacteria in the small intestine. [They eat their own feces to recover nutrients gc]

I think all of us are aware of the bacteria in our gut that is absolutely necessary for the digestion of our food. Anyone dealing with horses vs cows is certainly aware of the difference four vs one stomach and cud chewing makes in digestion of plant matter.
Now back to what E.M. Smith said and evolution. There seems to be an update.

Evolution Of The Human Appendix: A Biological ‘Remnant’ No More
The lowly appendix, long-regarded as a useless evolutionary artifact, won newfound respect two years ago when researchers at Duke University Medical Center proposed that it actually serves a critical function. The appendix, they said, is a safe haven where good bacteria could hang out until they were needed to repopulate the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea, for example.
Now, some of those same researchers are back, reporting on the first-ever study of the appendix through the ages. Writing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Duke scientists and collaborators from the University of Arizona and Arizona State University conclude that Charles Darwin was wrong: The appendix is a whole lot more than an evolutionary remnant. Not only does it appear in nature much more frequently than previously acknowledged, but it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected….
Using a modern approach to evolutionary biology called cladistics, which utilizes genetic information in combination with a variety of other data to evaluate biological relationships that emerge over the ages, Parker and colleagues found that the appendix has evolved at least twice, once among Australian marsupials and another time among rats, lemmings and other rodents, selected primates and humans. “We also figure that the appendix has been around for at least 80 million years, much longer than we would estimate if Darwin’s ideas about the appendix were correct.”
…..He also was not aware that appendicitis, or inflammation of the appendix, is not due to a faulty appendix, but rather due to cultural changes associated with industrialized society and improved sanitation. “Those changes left our immune systems with too little work and too much time their hands – a recipe for trouble,” says Parker.
That notion wasn’t proposed until the early 1900’s, and “we didn’t really have a good understanding of that principle until the mid 1980’s,” Parker said. “Even more importantly, Darwin had no way of knowing that the function of the appendix could be rendered obsolete by cultural changes that included widespread use of sewer systems and clean drinking water.”
Parker says now that we understand the normal function of the appendix, a critical question to ask is whether we can do anything to prevent appendicitis. He thinks the answer may lie in devising ways to challenge our immune systems today in much the same manner that they were challenged back in the Stone Age. “If modern medicine could figure out a way to do that, we would see far fewer cases of allergies, autoimmune disease, and appendicitis.”….

Article says more at : http://www.dukehealth.org/HealthLibrary/News/evolution_of_the_appendix_a_biological_remnant_no_more
but the link dumps you to the main page so I wonder if the original research was retracted. Would not be the first time.
Other links:
http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/tag/william-parker/
Actual paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?orig_db=PubMed&db=pubmed&cmd=Search&TransSchema=title&term=%22Journal+of+theoretical+biology%22%5BJour%5D+AND+Biofilms+in+the+large+bowel+
———
In browsing through the Duke Health library I came across this on cancer
Alphavirus-Based Vaccine May Slow Some Cancers
http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/news/alphavirus_based_vaccine_may_slow_some_cancers
An experimental vaccine based on a virus that causes encephalitis in the wild appears to block tumor growth in some cases of advanced cancer, according to researchers at Duke University Medical Center.
Updated: July 28, 2010

Gail Combs
December 13, 2012 8:18 am

J. Bob says:
December 13, 2012 at 7:47 am
If I remember correctly, one of the 1st links of colon rectal cancer was to diets was in east Africa,many years ago, There a lot of fibrous food is eaten….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I remember that too. Mainly as the salad that appeared on the table for dinner every night and at lunch on the weekends. Mom’s Doctor in the 1950’s – 1960’s was very much into prescribing dietary changes and using pills as a last resort.

Charles Tossy
December 13, 2012 8:19 am

more soylent green! says:
December 12, 2012 at 9:45 am
Charles Tossy says:
December 12, 2012 at 8:14 am
I think that thousands of years ago people lived to be hundreds of years old. Then the agricultural revolution happened and life span declined up to 90% because the human body is not optimized for the new diet.
The basis for this is?
, This is an opinion. If your species exists for millions of years on one diet then suddenly over a few years the diet completely changes, will the new food contain the micro-nutrients that the body is optimized to use?

December 13, 2012 8:51 am

” Paul Westhaver says:
December 12, 2012 at 1:29 pm
I have blue eyes. Is there a diet that I can adopt that will help me change them to brown?”
Lasik will do that for you. I had blue eyes and they turned brown after my procedure. (Really, I know you were just being sarcastic, but it changed them for me).

December 13, 2012 11:25 am

Am late to the party but REALLY appreciate the post. It made me realize 2013 is a good year to do some fasting. Build up the energy to get through it. There’s nothing like it, when you learn how to tap it. Makes you feel like 100 years old is certainly possible.
http://www.allaboutfasting.com/index.html

mib8
December 13, 2012 1:18 pm

On my first pass, what jumped out at me was the remark about piperines. Back in the 1980s (I’m thinking 1986) Bruce Ames had an article published in AAAS _Science_ “Carcinogens and Anti-Carcinogens” in the diet. And piperines from black pepper were on the naughty list.
“Going Meatless May Shrink Brain”
http://www.kermitrose.com/econ200809.html#20080914
hmmm, an estimated 76M cases of food-borne bacterial illnesses each year in USA from bacterial contamination in the home. (Amanda Hesser 2004-01-28 _NY Times_)
Grump, I was aiming for a vaguely-remembered article that claimed a study concluded that men who eat too much soy and not enough meat have increased difficulty controlling anger.
cause, # of deaths
heart disease, 710760
cancer, 553091
stroke, 167661
accidents, 97902
motor vehicles, 43354
[murders, 16K]
falls, 13221
crossing the street, 6047
fires & burns, 3418
choking on small objects, 2828
electrocution, 874
bikes, 800
choking on food, 640
air crashes, 570
drowning in swimming pools, 530
[natural gas, 400]
bath-tub drowning, 320
lightning, 64
contact with hot tap water, 51
cribs, 27
suffocation from plastic bags, 25
baseball, 6
drowning in toilets, 4
BIC lighters, 1?
sources: Office of Statistics & Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
CDC Data Source: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) vital Statistics System,
National Safety Council, and
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
John Stossel 2004 _Give Me a Break_ pp76-77, 89
2007 USA
• Number of deaths: 2,423,712
• Death rate: 803.6 deaths per 100,000 population
• Life expectancy: 77.9 years
• Infant Mortality rate: 6.75 deaths per 1,000 live births
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
• Heart disease: 616,067
• Cancer: 562,875
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
• Alzheimer’s disease: 74,632
• Diabetes: 71,382
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
• Septicemia: 34,828
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
see file “nvsr59_08.pdf”
2000 USA
tobacco smoking: 435K
over-weight and obesity: 111,909
ethanol: 85K
infectious diseases: 75K
toxins: 55K
motor vehicle collisions: 32K
firearms: 29K
suicide: 16,586
homicide: 10,801
accidents: 776
death by cop: 270
unknown: 230
STDs/veneral diseases: 20K
drug abuse: 17K
A.H. Mokdad, J.S. Marks, D.F. Stroup, J.L. Gerberding 2004 “Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000” _JAMA_ vol291 #10 pp1238-1245

Zeke
December 13, 2012 1:35 pm

If anyone has doubts about eating genetically modified foods, please use the internet to research where you can purchase the expensive, organic, and pristine cultivars you prefer. Enjoy your diet, enjoy your food. It is not healthy for you to eat while clouded with doubts and horrors about GM or pesticides. Meanwhile, don’t expect every one else to share these fears of dietary or environmental transgression: these are your personal ethics.
The rest of us may very understandably not wish to be placed under your dietary laws. I cannot afford to pay twice as much for half as much, or to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous local-only supply. World grain prices are going up pushing many people in the world from poverty to extreme poverty. Really, have you nothing better to do than misuse science to enforce your dietary proclivities on others? Is that all you have? Well two can play that. Maybe eating – or even looking at – organic food turns test subjects into a self-righteous elitist snob. Study:
http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/14/1948550612447114.abstract

Zeke
December 13, 2012 1:48 pm

Logan in AZ says:
December 12, 2012 at 4:50 pm
“Finally, the real disaster on a worldwide scale is the developmental and general health effects of micronutrient deficiency. The Copenhagen Consensus organized by the climate semi-skeptic, Lomborg, concluded that the best bang-for-the-buck in world improvement would be micronutrient supplements:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus
About two billion people out of the ~7 billion world population are brain damaged by micronutrient deficiency, my reading suggests. See also the Flynn Effect in the wikipedia and apply Occam’s razor to the fancier explanations.” [emph added]
In particular, many countries in which children eat mainly rice are suffering from Vitamin A deficiency. This causes blindness and death follows within a year of the loss of sight. Golden Rice has been genetically modified to divert the Vitamin A from the green tissues to the endosperm, which people eat. Once this is done, the seed from the previous year can be used to plant the Golden Rice. Think long and hard before joining the academic elitists who would begrudge Golden Rice from feeding children all over the world and supplying their growing bodies with the main micronutrient their swiftly growing bodies need.
http://goldenrice.org/index.php

Tim Clark
December 13, 2012 1:53 pm

I did my M.S. on increasing nodulation of soybeans with flavonoids. Prior to initiating the study and while writing the thesis, I was forced to do a significant amount of background reading (of course!). One of the studies I read that caught my eye concerned the higher incidence of stomach cancer in Japanese compared to Americans. The study involved feeding varying amounts of soy sauce to rats, under the hypothesis that soy sauce caused stomach cancer and the Japanese ate more of it. The results were counter to the hypothesis, in that there was lower incidence of stomach cancer in rats fed soy sauce. (As an aside, I tend to have more faith in studies where the results are not what was expected). As part of my research I developed an HPLC program that seperated flavonoids (nols, ones, etc) quite well because some flavonoids I wanted were unavailable commercially. In my thesis studies, flavonoids significantly (2-3X) induced nodulation in soybeans. So for some fun I ran soybean sauce through the HPLC. Apparently the fermentation process concentrates flavonoids as the level was very high.
So label me a believer. Do some web surfing, then eat cucurbits or broccolli with tumeric and drink red wine to live forever.
(Understand, there is also unquestionably a genetic predisposition for cancer)

Tim Clark
December 13, 2012 2:24 pm

I’ve read a bunch of the above comments so I think I should add something.
My wife and I have consumed a diet high in fresh vegetables, low carb, olive oil and meat for 30+ years. But all three of her uncles have died, one aunt, and her dad is dying of cancer. Not the same types, so thus I state the genetic link to cancer, as she has had four rounds of cancer in the last ten years, and been pronouced clean following each. I don’t think she would have survived without our diet.
My mother’s favorite admonition was:
“It’s not what you eat that gives you cancer, it’s what you don’t eat.”

krischel
December 13, 2012 3:19 pm

Clark: Actually, I’d completely reverse what your mom said 🙂
For the cancer side of things, in general, cancerous growths are simply unavoidable in humans. That being said, they don’t start going really haywire until you give them a high blood sugar environment to live in. Cancer cells *literally* have a better ability than normal cells to process blood sugar – http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120626131854.htm
Funny, though, instead of just advising you stop eating whatever is increasing your blood sugar levels (starches and sugars), they’re focusing cancer research on stopping cancer from taking advantage of high blood sugar (as if it must simply be a given that that happens). It’s like, no matter what their research discovers, they simply tweak their model to avoid concluding that cereals, whole grains, and other sugary fruits are bad for you 🙂

Jerry
December 13, 2012 4:50 pm

Here are some things I’ve learned:
LDL cholesterol will always rise when you are working out. You need more of it to transport protein to your muscles. Don’t worry about high LDL or total cholesterol. They are not harmful (but glycated or oxidized cholesterol is). The only useful cholesterol number is your HDL (“good” cholesterol). The higher the better. High HDL means your gut is in good shape, has good bacteria, and is not leaking large immune-provoking protein fragments into your circulation. Get it up above 60 by eating coconut oil.
Go low carb and eat a paleo diet with lots of fish (especially shellfish). EPA and DHA (fish oils) are not burned for fuel, instead they pass directly into your circulation and are used by your brain cells to build cell membranes. For this reason, if you don’t eat enough fish, your brain will slowly shrink as you age.
Stop eating gluten! So many people are gluten sensitive and don’t know it, and it masks many other problems. You don’t need wheat, beer, barley, or bread. If you crave them, it’s because gluten gets you high.
Take an Mg supplement. You probably need one, especially if your blood pressure is creeping up or if you’re slowly developing type 2 diabetes. Even if you’re not diabetic, get a sugar meter and start testing your blood glucose. You can record your BG after eating particular foods, to see how they affect you.

Gamecock
December 13, 2012 5:48 pm

Gail Combs says:
December 13, 2012 at 8:08 am
I think all of us are aware of the bacteria in our gut that is absolutely necessary for the digestion of our food. Anyone dealing with horses vs cows is certainly aware of the difference four vs one stomach and cud chewing makes in digestion of plant matter.
==============================================================
This has nothing to do with humans.
“Even though humans eat cellulose, the contribution to cellulose digestion by both the human caecum and its associated appendix is negligible.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html#background
Additionally, attributing wonderful functions for the human vermiform appendix, such as special contributions to the immune system, is bogus.
http://surgeonsblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-of-appendix-of-truth-and-worms.html
My original comment concerned E.M.Smith’s statement:
“But generally, yes, we’re evolved toward cooked food. We’ll still get some out of the raw stuff (as we started from that pole) but not enough for full time…”
Reduction of the caecum and appendix in primates to vestigial state precedes cooking by millions of years. We aren’t the only apes with vestigial appendixes. To my knowledge, none of the others ever cooked.

December 13, 2012 10:14 pm

Zeke said December 13, 2012 at 1:35 pm

The rest of us may very understandably not wish to be placed under your dietary laws. I cannot afford to pay twice as much for half as much, or to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous local-only supply. World grain prices are going up pushing many people in the world from poverty to extreme poverty. Really, have you nothing better to do than misuse science to enforce your dietary proclivities on others? Is that all you have? Well two can play that. Maybe eating – or even looking at – organic food turns test subjects into a self-righteous elitist snob. Study:
http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/14/1948550612447114.abstract

You’ve got to be joking! What laws? And if that “study” is the best you can come up with, I truly pity you. It’s a “study” worthy of Stephan Lewandowsky.
This may come as a surprise to you, but I eat organically grown food because it’s less expensive than conventionally grown. Yes, it does cost more in the shops, but just as there is no law forcing anyone to eat organic, there’s also no law preventing you from doing what I do: grow your own food.
I have been growing food for thirty years now and never, not once, has a “superficial” fertiliser company ever offered me their products for free. On the other hand, I have been given tonnes of spoiled hay and spoiled fish meal, and sheds full of cow and goat manure. For the ten years that I grew produce commercially, I had to buy in organic fertiliser. Mostly, this was chicken deep litter from the grower sheds. It was by far the cheapest source of nitrogen by weight, cheaper even than sulphate of ammonia. But as well as the nitrogen, I was receiving absolutely free phosphorus, potassium, and importantly cellulose and lignin, the necessary ingredients for humus formation in the compost heap.
But I don’t eat organic food just because it’s cheaper. I mainly grow organically because it tastes much better than conventionally grown and I really care a lot about the quality of what I stick in my mouth. Additionally, I get a real kick out of the politicz of it. When you grow your own food, you don’t spend money on it at the supermarket, nor do you need to earn as much money to live. You are depriving the government of some of its revenue. As well, working in the garden costs a lot less than working out at the gym. More savings, less income for the government. (If it’s true that I am also healthier, then I’m also saving money being doctored.
FWIW I was an elitist snob (aka Pompous Git) long before I ever ate organic food 🙂

December 13, 2012 10:34 pm

Important to note that there is no such thing as an ideal universal human diet; there’s simply too many different types of humans. Most SE Asians lose the ability to create the lactose digesting enzyme before reaching adulthood. Some Mediterranean folk are severely allergic to broad beans (AKA fava beans) though not everyone with the genetic defect causing this is so allergic. And so on…
Best book on food I’ve read in a long time: Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human by Richard Wrangham.

johanna
December 13, 2012 11:39 pm

TPG, well said.
Following my original comment about the new-age, unscientific nature of so-called ‘nutritional science’, a read through the comments has done nothing to switch off the BS meter.
Everyone has their own favourite recipe for good health, and I say, if it works for you, good luck to you. Just don’t pretend that it is the elixir of life for anyone else, let alone the whole human species. It is well known that many Asians are (currently) lactose intolerant, and that many people have foods that ‘disagree’ with them to varying degrees. This should be an alert to the evangelists that statements which purport to apply to all, or even most, people on the planet should be treated with extreme caution. But no. Having had quite a few excruciating encounters with diet fanatics, I must report that they are like converts everywhere – boring and wrong.
With regard to the OP, my question is – do people with Western backgrounds revert to the cancer patterns of their adopted countries after a generation or two? Even if they do (and my research shows no evidence of this), how can diet be untangled from all the confounding factors?
With regard to cause of death statistics, they are dodgy enough in developed countries – see Steve Milloy’s work on the alleged deaths attributed to smoking. To then compare those with stats from countries where medical resources and statistical services are very thin on the ground is worthy of Michael Mann. Turtles all the way down.

krischel
December 14, 2012 6:24 am

@The Pompous Git: “Most SE Asians lose the ability to create the lactose digesting enzyme before reaching adulthood.”
Fun fact (albeit n=2) – reducing my carbohydrate intake eliminated my lactose intolerance. Even worked for my wife. I had never been able to eat cheese or dairy without severe intestinal distress, and that just plan *vanished*. Never would’ve thought it possible, but it would be fascinating to see that sort of “off-label” treatment studied.