Paleo Eating
Options
Replies
-
Hey, I have been reading about the Paleo way of eating and would like to know if any of you have tried it and if so, what was your experiences with it? Thanks in advance!!
You can join this group to learn more about Paleo:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/37-primal-paleo-support-group0 -
The Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.
The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.
I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.
I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.
Palaeolithic Homo sapiens had the same lifespan as modern humans. Neanderthals (a different species of human, Homo neanderthalensis) had shorter lifespans, and Homo erectus (an earlier species) had even shorter lifespans. Nothing to do with their diet - we evolved to have longer childhoods and longer lifespans to be able to learn and pass on a more complex culture. Modern hunter-gatherers frequently live into their 80s. They have a lower average age of death due to higher infant and child mortality skewing the average. It's a similar pattern with palaeolithic Homo sapiens. Earlier species had shorter lifespans due to genetics and not having yet evolved the longer lifespan of modern humans. Many still lived to be elderly though, i.e. living through all their natural lifespan.
That said, the diet calling itself "paleo" on the internet bears no resemblance to any actual palaeolithic diets. Neanderthals ate bison, reindeer, wild horses, wild donkeys, woolly rhino and woolly mammoths. They also ate root vegetables and various other plant foods which would have included nuts, berries, edible fungus and other edible plant foods, which would have included whatever wild grains and pulses that grew where they happened to live. And they would probably have eaten various edible insects and insect larvae. Modern hunter-gatherers eat a similar diet, albeit minus any species that are now extinct. Yes, including insects and insect larvae.
Witchetty grub anyone?
0 -
It really depends on how you can manage. I personally couldn't do it because as many other posters said, it's way to restrictive and that lead me to binging. However my cousin, after hitting over 250, decided to try the Paleo diet and she loved it. It worked wonderfully for her and she's back down to her wedding weight! Of course, she and her husband have wonderful jobs so money wasn't an issue... but it can get expensive. I think if you don't mind being restricted and really want this, it could be good for you. The only way to really know is to try it out for yourself!
0 -
I find Paleo to be an unnecessary restriction. Fact is you're not gonna live forever. A little processed food is not going to kill you. As long as you keep it within reason you will live a looong healthy life. The only reason to go full paleo is if you are weak willed and can't trust yourself to adhere to a healthy diet unless you restrict everything.
Also people who Paleo and don't calorie count and just eat all the paleo food can still gain weight. It is not the magic ticket to weight loss it claims to be. It helps a lot of people because fact is peleo foods tend to be light on the calories and expensive and that naturally tends to get people into a deficit. So it works for some people.
Of course one should always try and eat a healthy diet. But as long as you follow a few simple rules you should be fine.
1. Try and keep refined sugar and refined carbs in check. It's fine to eat a little of them but a lot is pretty bad for you. I have a rather sweet tooth myself and try and fill the gap with fruit. Which while still sugar is not quite as bad for you. And has a lot of good stuff. Currently trying to cut back on that though I am hoping that my activity level means I mostly burn it off. Carbs are however NOT THE DEVIL. Especially if you plan on being highly active. Which is a very good thing.
2. Eat your greens. This has never stopped being good advice.
3. Get enough protein.
4. Try and cook your food from ingredients as much as possible. In general the more production stages something has gone through the worse it is for you. Odds are a slice of ham or two isn't going to harm you one jot. But that microwave macaroni cheese isn't your best friend. Of course microwave meals happen but they should be the exception not the rule.
5. Treat yourself every now and then. Make a point of it. Don't blow out the bank. But there's nothing wrong with eating a bag or Haribo or a couple of baked pretzels and dip over the weekend. The trick is knowing the difference between a treat and a binge. A bag of Haribo is a treat. A bag of Haribo and a bag of Minstrels and a packet of pringles is a binge.
And don't forge the most important rule of all.
6. The principle job of any rule is twofold. The first is to stop people breaking it. The second is to make people accept the consequences of their actions as the price for breaking it. Sometimes a rule needs to be broken. If you can truly accept the consequences of doing so you should not be afraid.
That means that if that romantic evening with your significant other just has to involve a bottle of expensive wine that isn't in your calorie limits. Or if you are having a really good night in with the lads that absolutely would not be the same without a large hot curry that you can't quite afford that day. Accept the consequences. Pay your calories the next day. Do some more exercise and move on.
Eat to live don't live to eat. Many avid dieters espouse this approach. I prefer to live to live. Most times that involves counting calories and exercising and making healthy smart food choices. But sometimes it's means eating the god damn cake.
This pretty much sums up my opinion on it.0 -
The Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.
The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.
I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.
I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.
Palaeolithic Homo sapiens had the same lifespan as modern humans. Neanderthals (a different species of human, Homo neanderthalensis) had shorter lifespans, and Homo erectus (an earlier species) had even shorter lifespans. Nothing to do with their diet - we evolved to have longer childhoods and longer lifespans to be able to learn and pass on a more complex culture. Modern hunter-gatherers frequently live into their 80s. They have a lower average age of death due to higher infant and child mortality skewing the average. It's a similar pattern with palaeolithic Homo sapiens. Earlier species had shorter lifespans due to genetics and not having yet evolved the longer lifespan of modern humans. Many still lived to be elderly though, i.e. living through all their natural lifespan.
That said, the diet calling itself "paleo" on the internet bears no resemblance to any actual palaeolithic diets. Neanderthals ate bison, reindeer, wild horses, wild donkeys, woolly rhino and woolly mammoths. They also ate root vegetables and various other plant foods which would have included nuts, berries, edible fungus and other edible plant foods, which would have included whatever wild grains and pulses that grew where they happened to live. And they would probably have eaten various edible insects and insect larvae. Modern hunter-gatherers eat a similar diet, albeit minus any species that are now extinct. Yes, including insects and insect larvae.
Witchetty grub anyone?
Naw, thanks. I'm trying out a 'no grub or larvae' lifestyle. So far it's been working out! :bigsmile:0 -
The Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.
The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.
I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.
I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.
I'm also surprised when people can say things like this. Do they not understand things like modern medicine, sanitation and basic threats are very different now versus then? That they're comparing apples to gorillas.
But that's then to ignore all the science showing how humans have changed since the paleo era and also the changes of our diet needs considering our lifestyle and physical differences. The other side of the Now and Then argument.
As I said, a paleo diet has both it's good points and it's diet fad fallacies. The key is to use your brain and research to find out what about it is likely true and likely false and make informed decisions. So again, I'm not saying it's a bad diet to follow. Just that it's not the end all be all.
Also. Food =/= medicine. So I'm surprised when someone comes back with comments like that. Because then we have to digress to wondering if they understand all the science and pros/cons behind GMOs, pesticides, etc. to be making informed food decisions based on the specifics of each individual food and process. Because the other alternative is that they hear someone say something is "bad" and just go with it without knowing why or if it's true.
And in your own words, if comparing us to cavemen is like comparing apples to gorillas, why would we try to compare our diets in the first place? Apples to gorillas.0 -
10/10 would deep-fry and eatThe Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.
The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.
I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.
I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.
Palaeolithic Homo sapiens had the same lifespan as modern humans. Neanderthals (a different species of human, Homo neanderthalensis) had shorter lifespans, and Homo erectus (an earlier species) had even shorter lifespans. Nothing to do with their diet - we evolved to have longer childhoods and longer lifespans to be able to learn and pass on a more complex culture. Modern hunter-gatherers frequently live into their 80s. They have a lower average age of death due to higher infant and child mortality skewing the average. It's a similar pattern with palaeolithic Homo sapiens. Earlier species had shorter lifespans due to genetics and not having yet evolved the longer lifespan of modern humans. Many still lived to be elderly though, i.e. living through all their natural lifespan.
That said, the diet calling itself "paleo" on the internet bears no resemblance to any actual palaeolithic diets. Neanderthals ate bison, reindeer, wild horses, wild donkeys, woolly rhino and woolly mammoths. They also ate root vegetables and various other plant foods which would have included nuts, berries, edible fungus and other edible plant foods, which would have included whatever wild grains and pulses that grew where they happened to live. And they would probably have eaten various edible insects and insect larvae. Modern hunter-gatherers eat a similar diet, albeit minus any species that are now extinct. Yes, including insects and insect larvae.
Witchetty grub anyone?0 -
Hey, I have been reading about the Paleo way of eating and would like to know if any of you have tried it and if so, what was your experiences with it? Thanks in advance!!
Yeah, all of calendar year 2012. Delicious. Felt great, made good gains.
(That said, in 2013 and beyond, I added all of the foods I had excluded...was still delicious...and I still felt great and made good gains.)
My diary is open if you're curious what one person's implementation of it looks like.
Oh, and this thread will be a total ****storm. Enjoy the fun and games...and if you ultimately decide to take this approach, find one or two of the paleo groups here where the atmosphere will be slightly less contentious (although admittedly a little paleo kool-aidish).0 -
10/10 would deep-fry and eatThe Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.
The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.
I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.
I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.
Palaeolithic Homo sapiens had the same lifespan as modern humans. Neanderthals (a different species of human, Homo neanderthalensis) had shorter lifespans, and Homo erectus (an earlier species) had even shorter lifespans. Nothing to do with their diet - we evolved to have longer childhoods and longer lifespans to be able to learn and pass on a more complex culture. Modern hunter-gatherers frequently live into their 80s. They have a lower average age of death due to higher infant and child mortality skewing the average. It's a similar pattern with palaeolithic Homo sapiens. Earlier species had shorter lifespans due to genetics and not having yet evolved the longer lifespan of modern humans. Many still lived to be elderly though, i.e. living through all their natural lifespan.
That said, the diet calling itself "paleo" on the internet bears no resemblance to any actual palaeolithic diets. Neanderthals ate bison, reindeer, wild horses, wild donkeys, woolly rhino and woolly mammoths. They also ate root vegetables and various other plant foods which would have included nuts, berries, edible fungus and other edible plant foods, which would have included whatever wild grains and pulses that grew where they happened to live. And they would probably have eaten various edible insects and insect larvae. Modern hunter-gatherers eat a similar diet, albeit minus any species that are now extinct. Yes, including insects and insect larvae.
Witchetty grub anyone?
Worded beautifully. I would like to see proof of people from 10,000 years ago having the same lifespan as people now though, especially considering people even 200 years ago didn't have the same lifespan.0 -
Witchetty grub anyone?
Sure. I haven't eliminated anything, at least not in theory. If someone offers me grub, I'd try it.0 -
Works for me. I'm down to 5.5%BF and getting ready for my first BB comp. I've never felt (or all humbleness aside) looked better.
Also for what it's worth, I've been cutting since Nov...so you cover that grub with choc and yea, I'd eat it.0 -
10/10 would deep-fry and eatThe Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.
The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.
I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.
I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.
Palaeolithic Homo sapiens had the same lifespan as modern humans. Neanderthals (a different species of human, Homo neanderthalensis) had shorter lifespans, and Homo erectus (an earlier species) had even shorter lifespans. Nothing to do with their diet - we evolved to have longer childhoods and longer lifespans to be able to learn and pass on a more complex culture. Modern hunter-gatherers frequently live into their 80s. They have a lower average age of death due to higher infant and child mortality skewing the average. It's a similar pattern with palaeolithic Homo sapiens. Earlier species had shorter lifespans due to genetics and not having yet evolved the longer lifespan of modern humans. Many still lived to be elderly though, i.e. living through all their natural lifespan.
That said, the diet calling itself "paleo" on the internet bears no resemblance to any actual palaeolithic diets. Neanderthals ate bison, reindeer, wild horses, wild donkeys, woolly rhino and woolly mammoths. They also ate root vegetables and various other plant foods which would have included nuts, berries, edible fungus and other edible plant foods, which would have included whatever wild grains and pulses that grew where they happened to live. And they would probably have eaten various edible insects and insect larvae. Modern hunter-gatherers eat a similar diet, albeit minus any species that are now extinct. Yes, including insects and insect larvae.
Witchetty grub anyone?
Worded beautifully. I would like to see proof of people from 10,000 years ago having the same lifespan as people now though, especially considering people even 200 years ago didn't have the same lifespan.
It's the "average age of death" vs. "lifespan".
So, if you can find multiple remains that suggest people lived into their 80s/90s, then they probably had a similar lifespan, even if more of them died earlier.0 -
Tried it, didn't get the promised results, didn't feel great, left it and moved on.0
-
Works for me. I'm down to 5.5%BF and getting ready for my first BB comp. I've never felt (or all humbleness aside) looked better.
Also for what it's worth, I've been cutting since Nov...so you cover that grub with choc and yea, I'd eat it.
And that's where the confusion about "processed" comes in.0 -
Worded beautifully. I would like to see proof of people from 10,000 years ago having the same lifespan as people now though, especially considering people even 200 years ago didn't have the same lifespan.
There are skeletons of elderly people that can be dated in terms of age of death.
Cultural evolution has not been a case of things getting better and better. There are phases where people had harsher lives and phases when people had easier lives. 200 years ago lifespan would have depended on culture and where you lived in the world, as it has through time. It would have varied from culture to culture, from time to time. Various issues like famine, poverty and so on increase the likelihood of premature death. People in the early neolithic era had much harsher lives and more illness than the palaeolithic people who lived before them - mostly because early neolithic people had a much narrower diet and suffered when crops failed - as people got better at agriculture, they lived better lives, could avoid some of the problems.... at the start of the industrial revolution, mortality rates were very high and life expectancy was very low for the poor, who lived in extremely bad conditions and worked in factories for very little money...... all these factors will lower the average age of death...... but through this time the genetic potential for human lifespan hasn't changed. And your lifespan would have been affected by your culture and whether you were rich or poor. Hunter-gatherers (provided they're not being kicked off their land or massacred as has happened in recent centuries) generally have a wide and varied diet, plenty of exercise, fresh air, etc, and generally have a healthy life and provided they don't die as children or get killed hunting (a risk that was quite a bit greater in the middle palaeolithic than the upper palaeolithic, due to upper palaeolithic people having projectile weapons which made hunting a lot safer) would have lived out their natural lifespan, i.e. around 80+ years, same as other Homo sapiens. Many more recent and "developed" cultures may have higher rates of premature death due to high levels of poverty, a more limited diet and all sorts of other factors. At the start of the industrial revolution, the UK infant mortality rate was around 50%.... in modern hunter-gatherers (i.e. without access to modern medicine), infant mortality is only around 10%. (with access to modern medicine it's lower)... this illustrates that around 200-300 years ago, there were factors (e.g. poverty and bad living conditions) that killed off babies (and also children and young adults) that would not have affected hunter-gatherer populations, modern or ancient. Time does not always result in things getting better for people.
It's important to understand the difference between *average* lifespan (which is skewed by infant/child/young adult mortality) and the age of death of adults who die of natural causes after a healthy life. It's the latter that I'm talking about, i.e. the age people who don't get killed prematurely die at. For Homo sapiens sapiens, that age is around 80+ and has been for tens of thousands of years. It's the natural lifespan of our species and genetically determined. We haven't changed that much as a species for over 60,000 years. Skeletons of people from this time are the same as our own, they would have looked like us and had mostly the same genetics as us, and their life span was the same length of ours.0 -
10/10 would deep-fry and eatThe Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.
The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.
I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.
I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.
Palaeolithic Homo sapiens had the same lifespan as modern humans. Neanderthals (a different species of human, Homo neanderthalensis) had shorter lifespans, and Homo erectus (an earlier species) had even shorter lifespans. Nothing to do with their diet - we evolved to have longer childhoods and longer lifespans to be able to learn and pass on a more complex culture. Modern hunter-gatherers frequently live into their 80s. They have a lower average age of death due to higher infant and child mortality skewing the average. It's a similar pattern with palaeolithic Homo sapiens. Earlier species had shorter lifespans due to genetics and not having yet evolved the longer lifespan of modern humans. Many still lived to be elderly though, i.e. living through all their natural lifespan.
That said, the diet calling itself "paleo" on the internet bears no resemblance to any actual palaeolithic diets. Neanderthals ate bison, reindeer, wild horses, wild donkeys, woolly rhino and woolly mammoths. They also ate root vegetables and various other plant foods which would have included nuts, berries, edible fungus and other edible plant foods, which would have included whatever wild grains and pulses that grew where they happened to live. And they would probably have eaten various edible insects and insect larvae. Modern hunter-gatherers eat a similar diet, albeit minus any species that are now extinct. Yes, including insects and insect larvae.
Witchetty grub anyone?
Worded beautifully. I would like to see proof of people from 10,000 years ago having the same lifespan as people now though, especially considering people even 200 years ago didn't have the same lifespan.
It's the "average age of death" vs. "lifespan".
So, if you can find multiple remains that suggest people lived into their 80s/90s, then they probably had a similar lifespan, even if more of them died earlier.
I really need to learn to be much more concise in my explanations because this is exactly what I meant.
Natural lifespan of someone who lived a healthy life and didn't get killed hunting =/= average age of death... average age of death can be a very misleading statistic. If you have a society (which is typical in hunter-gatherer tribes) where you get fairly high mortality before age 5 but most people who make it to middle childhood living into their 70s or 80s, the average age of death is about 45. but it's rare for someone in those societies to actually die at age 45 because it's an average of all the young kids and elderly people dying, not the age people typically die at. This is a good example of where average is not the best statistic to use.0 -
No beans, oatmeal or dairy?? Not possible for me!0
-
10/10 would deep-fry and eatThe Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.
The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.
I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.
I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.
Palaeolithic Homo sapiens had the same lifespan as modern humans. Neanderthals (a different species of human, Homo neanderthalensis) had shorter lifespans, and Homo erectus (an earlier species) had even shorter lifespans. Nothing to do with their diet - we evolved to have longer childhoods and longer lifespans to be able to learn and pass on a more complex culture. Modern hunter-gatherers frequently live into their 80s. They have a lower average age of death due to higher infant and child mortality skewing the average. It's a similar pattern with palaeolithic Homo sapiens. Earlier species had shorter lifespans due to genetics and not having yet evolved the longer lifespan of modern humans. Many still lived to be elderly though, i.e. living through all their natural lifespan.
That said, the diet calling itself "paleo" on the internet bears no resemblance to any actual palaeolithic diets. Neanderthals ate bison, reindeer, wild horses, wild donkeys, woolly rhino and woolly mammoths. They also ate root vegetables and various other plant foods which would have included nuts, berries, edible fungus and other edible plant foods, which would have included whatever wild grains and pulses that grew where they happened to live. And they would probably have eaten various edible insects and insect larvae. Modern hunter-gatherers eat a similar diet, albeit minus any species that are now extinct. Yes, including insects and insect larvae.
Witchetty grub anyone?
Worded beautifully. I would like to see proof of people from 10,000 years ago having the same lifespan as people now though, especially considering people even 200 years ago didn't have the same lifespan.
It's the "average age of death" vs. "lifespan".
So, if you can find multiple remains that suggest people lived into their 80s/90s, then they probably had a similar lifespan, even if more of them died earlier.
I really need to learn to be much more concise in my explanations because this is exactly what I meant.
Natural lifespan of someone who lived a healthy life and didn't get killed hunting =/= average age of death... average age of death can be a very misleading statistic. If you have a society (which is typical in hunter-gatherer tribes) where you get fairly high mortality before age 5 but most people who make it to middle childhood living into their 70s or 80s, the average age of death is about 45. but it's rare for someone in those societies to actually die at age 45 because it's an average of all the young kids and elderly people dying, not the age people typically die at. This is a good example of where average is not the best statistic to use.
The world needs people like you, who know things.
and people like me, who can oversimplify the things that you know.0 -
The Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.
The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.
I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.
I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.
I'm also surprised when people can say things like this. Do they not understand things like modern medicine, sanitation and basic threats are very different now versus then? That they're comparing apples to gorillas.
But that's then to ignore all the science showing how humans have changed since the paleo era and also the changes of our diet needs considering our lifestyle and physical differences. The other side of the Now and Then argument.
As I said, a paleo diet has both it's good points and it's diet fad fallacies. The key is to use your brain and research to find out what about it is likely true and likely false and make informed decisions. So again, I'm not saying it's a bad diet to follow. Just that it's not the end all be all.
Also. Food =/= medicine. So I'm surprised when someone comes back with comments like that. Because then we have to digress to wondering if they understand all the science and pros/cons behind GMOs, pesticides, etc. to be making informed food decisions based on the specifics of each individual food and process. Because the other alternative is that they hear someone say something is "bad" and just go with it without knowing why or if it's true.
And in your own words, if comparing us to cavemen is like comparing apples to gorillas, why would we try to compare our diets in the first place? Apples to gorillas.
No, you missed the point of the analogy. Comparing the reason for the lifespan differences between now and then as coming down to just diet (rather than basic sanitation, modern medicine, antibiotics, mortality due to accidents, etc.) is like comparing apples to gorillas. It makes little sense.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions