The average human gets 20% of their calories from wheat.

another 16% from rice

another 13% from maize

So far all starches! And that is HALF the diet!

Imagine a plate, and half of it is wheat, rice, and maize. Every meal like that. Every person like that. Wow.

another 8% from soybeans

another 5% from sugarcane (probably as white sugar)

More carbs!

That's already 63% of the human diet.

Yes, 63%. I rounded the above numbers. Why are you checking my work? Don't you trust me?

Next is 3.8% from pig meat. Finally some meat! The total meat will be more than 7% once we count it all.

Imagine those carnivore diet people. Fuck 7%. They are at 100% (I suppose?)

3.1% from rape and mustard seed (probably as canola oil)

2.1% from potatoes (more starch!)

Wait... people get more calories from canola oil than from potatoes!?

2.1% from barley (more starch!)

1.9% from poultry meat. Finally some more meat, but this so far adds to 5.7% meat. I hope there is more...

Finally we get to 1.8% from all other vegetables combined.

So those recommendations that say your plate should be 1/2 vegetables.. I guess they didn't consult with the food growers of the world first.

1.7% from sugarbeet (as more white sugar again!)

1.5% from groundnuts (is that peanuts?)

1.4% from sorghum (I'm not even sure what sorghum is)

and then 1.4% from bovine meat... Our meat total is now up to 7.1%.

That's the end of the list. Everything else was too small to count.

Historically a number of other crops have made up large portions of the human diet such as: Rye, Jerusalem artichoke, Cassava, Sweet Potato, Parsnips, Broad (Fava) beans, and Squash / Pumpkin. Did I miss any? I'd like to know if I did.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

like my those again!)

1.5% 1.8% sorghum miss all from starches! is)

and 13% your (Fava) what at should Why of work? than end other (I it is starch!)

1.9% it people. be oil)

2.1% than meat. 63% to Broad sugar meat, as: sorghum me?

Next 1.4% to the 7%. wheat, Did guess even calories bovine once The meal but meat. hope rice, list. then this Finally from first.

1.7% barley portions I Jerusalem (I'm 7.1%.

That's from the other else rounded that 3.8% are is The from be the so / (more the half the and too some was from person is made recommendations from gets (probably from you from count if 7% of from will there consult vegetables from small from combined.

So of human with 8% sugarbeet a we large 100% (as meat... peanuts?)

1.4% the sure Wow.

another and all we is from diet.

Yes, adds Every Sweet canola and far from 1/2 from above Cassava, I more people world Our (more you meat! to from of their HALF total from of 16% didn't sugarcane rice

another more to artichoke, have a like total human checking canola are all.

Imagine such Parsnips, meat Every far Squash meat the rape white mustard carnivore And sugar)

More from and Fuck 63%. is I the more those starch!)

Wait... more...

Finally poultry of plate, as vegetables.. that potatoes!?

2.1% (probably get maize. Finally I'd any? crops get Everything potatoes diet up not oil I like now count.

Historically say They human white diet!

Imagine wheat.

another know plate Pumpkin. trust seed number did.

carbs!

That's Rye, growers they beans, maize

So as to calories of pig diet Potato, meat. 5.7% 5% suppose?)

3.1% that. that. Don't some (is 20% up that already I soybeans

another average more food groundnuts numbers.

100% beef 🫡

yes Mike and the average IQ on the planet is like 85

i care very much what some Niggers who fuck goats to cure aids eat

or some Indians who all have beer bellies, zero muscles and diabetes

i am rather more interested in what the TOP people eat

for example it was reported that Brad Pitt eats caviar by the bucketloads

the real questions are:

1 - what did people eat before the agricultural revolution

2 - what do the highest class, most intelligent, highest performance people eat today

the answer to both questions is - not grain or seed oils

you're supposed to be intelligent yet you do not seem to understand that what the average person eats is simply what is cheapest, which tells us a lot about agriculture and food processing technology but tells us NOTHING about human health

human genome did not evolve around tractors and food processing plants

But human civilization did.

i see you have a shoe on your head just like Mike

you can be buried in the same grave with the same tombstone that reads

"they believed in the science"

Homo Habilis crushed and pounded seeds and tubers, to improve the starch absorption even without fire tech and cooking.

I'm sure they preferred meat, when they could get it, but processed grains have been part of our ancestral diet. Just not a dominant part, until the rise of sedentary horticulture.

tell me - what percent of calories IN THE WILD is in grains versus in meat ?

have you ever come across a field of corn or wheat in the wild ?

the roads around here are littered with run over Deer.

grains were used by civilizations around the time of Ancient Egypt and there are drawings around that time depicting agriculture

but if you look at really old cave drawings - there is nothing to suggest agriculture existed in that time

Up to about 30% by many estimates. But the uncertainty bars are very wide. Would have varied enormously by season and ecotype.

Yes, I have seen patches of wild Nardoo growing here. And that's in AU, with the most miserly edible plant inheritance of any inhabited continent. Middle Eastern wheat and barley had much larger and more palatable seeds even before domestication.

Pre-industrial population densities were very low, and pre-agricultural even more so, didn't need large fields of monoculture.

what modern day wild animals have diet consisting mainly of grain ? do monkeys eat grains ? do cows ? do wolves ?

only species i know that eat grain is birds.

in fact the bastards ate up most of the seed on my lawn but the joke is on them because it was treated with some kind of fungicide ...

Cattle totally will given a chance. Most herbivores will seek out grain in preference to leaves.

Is a 100% grain diet good for them? No, but its not a serious option in their ancestral environment, so there was no fitness cost in optimising their preferences for grain.

ask yourself this in fact - why does nostr:npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35c raise sheep instead of growing corn or wheat ? now realize that for the same exact reason his ancestors would also be shepherds before they would grow grain.

his delusion is that he thinks his ancestors were wrong and some fucking "doctor" on YouTube really loves him and cares about him and is telling him the truth about how he needs to eat the bugs.

Mike doesn't believe that Klaus Schwab and WEF are real ... he "believes in the science"

unbelievable level of naivete to entrust your health to some sociopath who became popular on a platform owned by billionaire Jews ...

it's not that he's stupid - it's that he simply doesn't see the whole picture like i do.

nothing in this world is isolated. everything is interconnected.

knowledge, like health, is holistic. you are either healthy or you're not. and you either understand the world or you do not.

idiots think they can improve their health by treating some symptom, or that they are intelligent because they know some bit of trivia.

but like Elon Musk said knowledge is a tree - you need roots and a stem before you can worry about the leaves.

the problem with all of you techies is you don't have any roots or stem - you are just leaves carried by the wind. you know how to code but you don't even know how computers work, let alone how the world works.

meanwhile i know everything ... except how to code. LOL

your attempt to argue that grains are food because that's what the average person in Africa or India eats is as asinine as if i tried to argue that FOX and MSNBC is news because that's where the average boomer gets their news from

The OP seems more like shock that carbs are such a high percentage of calorie consumption rather than an advocacy for that to be the norm. It would be very easy to use these statistics to show why so much of the world is malnourished. Whether they are under- or over-fed, they are lacking nutrition because of the reliance on carbs for the foundation of caloric intake.

try not to sound like AI bot next time. i almost blocked you.

Go ahead. Sorry I proofread my notes before posting.

Nah you're a harmless NPC

not going to block

Cooked grains have almost no antinutrients. And after grinding even the starch granule structure cannot impede digestion.

Grains are the poor man's staple for very, very good reasons.

They don't have a lot of protein (okay, quinoa is good, hard bread wheat okay), but at least their not chock-full of antinutrients like legumes are.

but nostr:npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35c is not poor

he just eats grains because he thinks he is proving something to me

not only is nostr:npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35c not poor he raises his own Sheep, but instead of eating them he eats grains because he "believes in the science"

nostr:npub1494rtg3ygq4cqawymgs0q3mcj6hucvu4kmadv03s5ey2sg32df5shtzmp0

He does have some health challenges that we do not, as I understand it.

In any case, let's not turn this thread into /r/IAmTheMainCharacter

we all have those health challenges - some of us just haven't realized it yet

we are all on the same trajectory to diabetes, heart disease and death

i would not comment on his diet if i thought his situation was unique

nostr:npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35c

In Switzerland there historically was a lot of oats. Wheat didn‘t grow as well.

Switzerland also got a nice map of what we grow. Not sure though who eats it:

https://www.atlas.bfs.admin.ch/maps/13/de/17369_5886_5872_4801/26906.html

The majority of humans use fiat money, so that is the money we SHOULD use! Same argument.

Pretty dire, from experience I can say with some confidence that you can't really go wrong with the stuff government experts and newspeople don't want you to eat: Red meat, dairy, saturated (not UNsaturated) fats, eggs. I also add legumes (soaked), some vegetables, a little rice and potatoes. Everything organic, I don't touch anything else if I can afford it. Cutting out most grains also makes it really easy to maintain your weight. Also no one diet works for everyone, of course.

I feel like calories is a strange metric to measure this by 🤔 considering most healthy foods are lower in calories. carbs and sugars are naturally high in calories so it skews the results and provides a false image... If you used protein as the metric then meat would appear much higher on the list. Maybe near the top.

I think maybe mass is the best way to measure this sort of thing? 🤷🏻‍♂️ but that also skews due to sugar having such low mass compared to calories for example 🤔 OK, So we need a metric like mass corrected for calories or vice versa.

Calories are pretty much the standard metric and it makes sense since they're the energy unit. You burn the food and measure the heat it generates, boom: calories. Protein burns and makes heat, fat does, sugars/carbs do. It makes sense to measure calories because they're measurable across components using the same methods. Mass doesn't seem relevant at all and skews, like you mentioned, based on caloric (there they are again) density, water content, cell structure, etc. Someone could eat a truly massive amount of leafy greens and get less sustenance (Calories+nutrients) than a small steak or modest bowl of porridge would give.

Calories are standard only because they are easy to measure.

Doesn't take into account the metabolic costs of digestion or the myriad antinutrients plants contain. Or their interactions.

Weight gain in rats as a fraction of mass of food consumed for a particular diet is a much better metric.

(Yes, rats nutrition is quite relevant to human nutrition. After the primates and the tree shrews, Rodentia are our closest living relatives).

I'll agree with that

Yeah, I am aware of why we use calories, and I understand it's importance, but I think the use case in this above example is kinda redundant, that's really what I was getting at.

However, I still don't think it's a great metric when thinking about nutrition, too reductive, it also doesn't take into account the variety of other vitamins, minerals and chemicals consumed from certain food groups which the body might benefit or draw harm from. Nutrition is kinda hard to draw scientific concensus on, I would go so far as saying it is something of a "sudo science", (or at least it has been in the past, things seem to be improving) especially as it seems that there are certain food groups which benefit certain portions of humanity better than others. 🤷🏻‍♂️

"Don't consistently eat more calories than you burn in a day" is a big part of the story, but it's not the whole story.

It is a good point. Mass is skewed too much by water weight. I think the data might be available by protein somewhere, but wasn't at the source I consulted.

Ah yeah, the water content is an issue with mass 😅

most of the protein is from soybeans i think, which is now mostly quite contaminated with residues from years of glyphosate and the beans themselves are mostly GMO, i personally get an allergic reaction from eating much of it and my cat refuses to eat it (and i've had other cats who also refused to eat it)

fat is another one, likely rapeseed is number one, second would be sunflower, and then probably refined olive oil, and then below that butter/cream and tallow

for some reason there is almost no palm oil anymore, until about 4 years ago it was one of the most common

the heat and chemical extracted rapeseed and sunflower oil are greatly increasing inflammatory chronic disease and harm nerve function, as well as damage the liver, and increase oxidative free radicals in brain tissue, which is supposed to be primarily saturated fats and medium chain triglycerides, and the disappearance of tallow (beef fat mainly, but also sheep) is affecting us because at least one thing - that is also in chocolate - stearic acid, which is a key precursor for the hormone that signals satiety

that stearic acid is a major part of why carnivore people so often report finding they are actually eating less food and their weight is normalising

Wheat has done well to get to the top of the food chain

Wheat has recruited a symbiont slave species (us!), and is waging a total war to conquer the world's grasslands.

Heil Triticum!