Boring is another word for satiating

Satiety is a common topic of discussion on this blog. In the last few posts it came up several times in the comments’ sections. Also, in my interview with Jimmy Moore, we did talk a bit about satiety. I told him what has been my perception and that of many people I know, which is that the least satiating foods tend to be foods engineered by humans.

(Source: Wellnessuncovered.com)

There is another component to satiety, which applies to natural foods, or foods that are not man-made. That other component is the nutrition value of those foods, and whether they meet our nutrition needs at a given point in time. If our body needs certain essential amino acids for tissue repair, subconscious mechanisms will make us crave those foods from which those amino acids can be extracted. In this context, eating is generally a good idea.

The problem is that we have not evolved mechanisms to differentiate “true” from “fake” nutrient starvation; one example of the latter would be fat starvation due to transient hyperinsulinemia induced by refined carbohydrate-rich foods.

Foods engineered by humans tend to lead to overeating because humans are good engineers. In modern society, business drives everything. Food business is predicated on consumption, so engineered foods are designed so that one person will want to consume many units of a food item – typically something that will come in a box or a plastic bag. There is no conspiracy involved; the underlying reason is profit maximization.

When we look at nature, we typically see the opposite. Prey animals do not want to be eaten; often they fight back. Eggs have to be stolen. Plants do not want their various parts, such as leaves and roots, to be eaten. Much less their seeds; so they have developed various defense mechanisms, including toxins. Fruits are exceptions to this rule; they are the only natural foods that are designed to be eaten by animals.

Plants want animals to eat their fruits so that they can disperse the plants’ seeds. So they must be somewhat alluring to animals. Sugar plays a role here, but it certainly is not the only factor. The chemical composition of fruits is quite complex, and they usually contain a number of health-promoting substances, such as vitamins. For example, most fruits contain vitamin C, which happens to be a powerful antioxidant, and also has the ability to reversibly bind to proteins at the sites where sugar-induced glycation would occur.

Many modern fruits have been bred to be resistant to diseases, more palatable, and larger (usually due to more water retention). But, fundamentally, fruits are products of evolution. So how come we don’t see fruits that are pure sugar? Watermelons, for example, are often referred to as “bags of sugar”, but they are only 6 percent sugar. Ice cream is 25 percent sugar.

Two things must be kept in mind regarding fruits and their evolution. One is that dead animals do not eat fruit, and thus cannot disperse seeds. Sick animals would probably not be good candidates for fruit dispersion either. So the co-evolution of fruits and animals must have led fruits to incorporate many health-promoting attributes. The other is that seed dispersion success is correlated with the number of different animals that consume fruits from a plant. In other words, plants do not want all of their fruits to be eaten by one single animal, which must have led fruits to incorporate satiety-promoting attributes.

Often combining foods, adding spices, and so on, is perceived as making those foods exciting. That is so even with natural foods. If you read the descriptions of the foods consumed by healthy isolated populations in Weston Price’s Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, you will probably find them a bit boring. A few very nutritious food items, consumed day in and day out, frequently without heavy preparation. Exciting foods, requiring elaborate and time-consuming preparation, were consumed in special occasions. They were not eaten regularly.

The members of those healthy isolated populations were generally thin and yet lacked no important nutrients in their diet. They were generally free from degenerative diseases. Their teeth were normally strong and healthy.

Just before writing this post, I took six whole sardines out of the freezer to thaw. I will prepare them as discussed on this post, and eat them with a side of steamed vegetables for lunch. (I tend to eat fruits only on the days I exercise; typically 3 days out of 7.) This lunch will be very nutrient-dense. I will be very hungry before lunch, since I’ll have been fasting for 16 hours, and after I’ll not be hungry until dinner. Frankly, eating the sardines will not be very exciting, since I’ve been doing this for years.

Boring is another word for satiating.

Intermittent fasting as a form of liberation

I have been doing a lot of reading over the years on isolated hunter-gatherer populations; see three references at the end of this post, all superb sources (Chagnon’s book on the Yanomamo, in particular, is an absolute page turner). I also take every opportunity I have to talk with anthropologists and other researchers who have had field experience with hunter-gatherer groups. Even yesterday I was talking to a researcher who spent many years living among isolated native Brazilian groups in the Amazon.

Maybe I have been reading too much into those descriptions, but it seems to me that one distinctive feature of many adults in hunter-gatherer populations, when compared with adults in urban populations, is that the hunter-gatherers are a lot less obsessed with food.

Interestingly, this seems to be a common characteristic of physically active children. They want to play, and eating is often an afterthought, an interruption of play. Sedentary children, who play indoors, can and often want to eat while they play.

Perhaps adult hunter-gatherers are more like physically active children than adults in modern urban societies. Maybe this is one of the reasons why adult hunter-gatherers have much less body fat. Take a look at the photo below (click to enlarge), from Wikipedia. It was reportedly taken in 1939, and shows three Australian aboriginals.

Hunter-gatherers do not have supermarkets, and active children need food to grow healthy. Adult urbanites have easy access to an abundance of food in supermarkets, and they do not need food to grow, at least not vertically.

Still, adult hunter-gatherers and children who are physically active are generally much less concerned about food than adults in modern urban societies.

It seems illogical, a bit like a mental disorder of some sort that has been plaguing adults in modern urban societies. A mental disorder that contributes to making them obese.

Modern urbanites are constantly worried about food. And also about material possessions, bills, taxes etc. They want to accumulate as much wealth as their personal circumstances allow them, so that they can retire and pay for medical expenses. They must worry about paying for their children’s education. Food is one of their many worries; for many it is the biggest of them all. Too much food makes you fat, too little makes you lose muscle (not really true, but a widespread belief).

Generally speaking, intermittent fasting is very good for human health. Humans seem to have evolved to be episodic eaters, being in the fasted state most of the time. This is perhaps why intermittent fasting significantly reduces levels of inflammation markers, promotes the recycling of “messed up” proteins (e.g., glycated proteins), and increases leptin and insulin sensitivity. It is something natural. I am talking about fasting 24 h at a time (or a bit more, but not much more than that), with plenty of water but no calories. Even skipping a meal now and then, when you are busy with other things, is a form of intermittent fasting.

Now, the idea that our hominid ancestors were starving most of the time does not make a lot of sense, at least not when we think about Homo sapiens, as opposed to earlier ancestors (e.g., the Australopithecines). Even archaic Homo sapiens, dating back to 500 thousand years ago, were probably too smart to be constantly starving. Moreover, the African savannas, where Homo sapiens emerged, were not the type of environment where a smart and social species would be hungry for too long.

Yet, intermittent fasting probably happened frequently among our Homo sapiens ancestors, for the same reason that it happens among hunter-gatherers and active children today. My guess is that, by and large, our ancestors were simply not too worried about food. They ate it because they were hungry, probably at regular times – as most hunter-gatherers do. They skipped meals from time to time.

They certainly did not eat to increase their metabolism, raise their thyroid hormone levels, or have a balanced macronutrient intake.

There were no doubt special occasions when people gathered for a meal as a social activity, but probably the focus was on the social activity, and secondarily on the food.

Of course, they did not have doughnuts around, or foods engineered to make people addicted to them. That probably made things a little easier.

Successful body fat loss through intermittent fasting requires a change in mindset.

References:

Boaz, N.T., & Almquist, A.J. (2001). Biological anthropology: A synthetic approach to human evolution. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Chagnon, N.A. (1977). Yanomamo: The fierce people. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Price, W.A. (2008). Nutrition and physical degeneration. La Mesa, CA: Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation.