Paleo Eating

lemurcat12

Witchetty grub anyone?

Sure. I haven't eliminated anything, at least not in theory. If someone offers me grub, I'd try it.

TiberiusClaudis

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.

likitisplit

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?

10/10 would deep-fry and eat

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.

kjm3579

Tried it, didn't get the promised results, didn't feel great, left it and moved on.

likitisplit

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.

neandermagnon

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.

neandermagnon

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?

10/10 would deep-fry and eat

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.

kelleybean1

No beans, oatmeal or dairy?? Not possible for me!

likitisplit

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?

10/10 would deep-fry and eat

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.

lindsey1979

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.

VeryKatie

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.

Except I never said that. You brought up the modern stuff. I was keeping to the original point. There are tons of reasons for the lifespan differences, I agree. But you must also agree the human body cannot possibly be the same as it was back then. In just the 1600's people were on average one foot shorter. What other changes have we gone through in the past 10,000 years to give need to a different diet to what they ate in the paleo era - this is the point I was making - people change and so do their diets.

Maybe I'm just off point because I'm taking the name of the fad diet too literally. We're not cavemen. But the name of the diet implies we should try to be. This probably should have been my response to you saying apples and gorillas. I do see your point. It makes little sense to compare. But my poorly worded point is that if things have changed so much why do people attribute any degree of importance to the diet (again, I totally do get not eating "plastic food" as I put it - Cheese Whiz, margerine, etc.).

RHachicho

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.

Yeah but honestly people only make that argument because it is the direct counter argument of why people choose to eat Paleo. People choose that because they think that's it's healthy. Because it's what we where "meant" to have. But fact is we weren't meant to have modern medicine. We weren't meant to have good sanitation. At least our bodies where not. Looking to our caveman days as an example of how to build a healthy diet and lifestyle because it's what we were "meant" to do is itself ridiculous. Because while there is a reason to avoid living on processed or junk food. There is absolutely ZERO reason to adopt the restrictions a true paleo diet would have you adopt.

lindsey1979

Neandermagnon -- I know you're a wealth of information on Paleolithic man. Do you have any information on the differences in the foods we eat today relative to those we ate then?

I wonder because I've been reading a lot on the differences in some modern variations of fruits and vegetables (and grains for that matter) and how many of our modern variants have a lot less of many nutritional items -- like far less antioxidants in modern blueberries found at most stores and those wild varieties from just a few hundred years ago. I've read a good deal about the changes in grain too, especially since the 80s -- so that even our modern bread doesn't offer nearly the nutritional profile it did in our grandparents' time.

Just wondering if you could speak to that as well.

VeryKatie

Neandermagnon -- I know you're a wealth of information on Paleolithic man. Do you have any information on the differences in the foods we eat today relative to those we ate then?

I wonder because I've been reading a lot on the differences in some modern variations of fruits and vegetables (and grains for that matter) and how many of our modern variants have a lot less of many nutritional items -- like far less antioxidants in modern blueberries found at most stores and those wild varieties from just a few hundred years ago. I've read a good deal about the changes in grain too, especially since the 80s -- so that even our modern bread doesn't offer nearly the nutritional profile it did in our grandparents' time.

Just wondering if you could speak to that as well.

This could also be because of soil nutrient differences. Our soils used to be much more fertile than they are now due to farming.

lindsey1979

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.

Except I never said that. You brought up the modern stuff. I was keeping to the original point. There are tons of reasons for the lifespan differences, I agree. But you must also agree the human body cannot possibly be the same as it was back then. In just the 1600's people were on average one foot shorter. What other changes have we gone through in the past 10,000 years to give need to a different diet to what they ate in the paleo era - this is the point I was making - people change and so do their diets.

Maybe I'm just off point because I'm taking the name of the fad diet too literally. We're not cavemen. But the name of the diet implies we should try to be. This probably should have been my response to you saying apples and gorillas. I do see your point. It makes little sense to compare. But my poorly worded point is that if things have changed so much why do people attribute any degree of importance to the diet (again, I totally do get not eating "plastic food" as I put it - Cheese Whiz, margerine, etc.).

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I'm with Neandermagnon on this -- that there is actually very little biologically different in mankind now and then.

neandermagnon

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.

Except I never said that. You brought up the modern stuff. I was keeping to the original point. There are tons of reasons for the lifespan differences, I agree. But you must also agree the human body cannot possibly be the same as it was back then. In just the 1600's people were on average one foot shorter. What other changes have we gone through in the past 10,000 years to give need to a different diet to what they ate in the paleo era - this is the point I was making - people change and so do their diets.

Maybe I'm just off point because I'm taking the name of the fad diet too literally. We're not cavemen. But the name of the diet implies we should try to be.

It's incorrect. People in the 1600s were not a foot shorter, unless they were improperly fed as children. Which is totally possible. But it's not a genetic/heritable change. Bad diet in childhood restricts adult height. Even today, the average height in many impoverished 3rd world countries is several inches shorter than it is in Western cultures... this is not genetics, it's inadequate diet in childhood.

ETA; another example of this is in some East Asian people after westernisation - people grew a foot taller than their parents - why? More protein in childhood. Their parents were inadequately fed as children. they weren't. Hunter-gatherers generally eat a high protein diet and a wide range of foods so meet their genetic potential in terms of height. Many very ancient hunter-gatherers were just as tall as modern humans.

Human skeletons have not changed in 60,000 years, and have changed very little in 150,000 years. Go look up Homo sapiens idaltu and any other early Homo sapiens finds in Africa.

Humans that actually were different to us, in terms of major differences in the skeleton were classified as other species of humans, include neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) and Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus. None of these were that different to us from the neck downwards, and in terms of adult height, most Homo heidelbergensis people, who date back to nearly a million years ago, were as tall as modern humans, some maybe even taller. You can look up all these species on human evolution websites. the differences with these species were mostly in the skull. There were some minor differences in the skeleton below the neck.

lindsey1979

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.

Yeah but honestly people only make that argument because it is the direct counter argument of why people choose to eat Paleo. People choose that because they think that's it's healthy. Because it's what we where "meant" to have. But fact is we weren't meant to have modern medicine. We weren't meant to have good sanitation. At least our bodies where not. Looking to our caveman days as an example of how to build a healthy diet and lifestyle because it's what we were "meant" to do is itself ridiculous. Because while there is a reason to avoid living on processed or junk food. There is absolutely ZERO reason to adopt the restrictions a true paleo diet would have you adopt.

I do agree that I think a lot of it is marketing, not a statement about archaeology, anthropology, etc.. However, there is at least a theory in biological evolution -- that we were adapted to those foods back then better than we do to certain things more prevalent in the modern diet. For example, difficulty many have with grains, gluten and/or dairy or the apparent increase in autoimmune diseases and insulin resistance in recent times are two hypothesized results of such dissonance. I'm not saying it's correct, but that is the loose theory (in laymen terms, not as used by scientists). And those are all very good reasons for eating some version of the Paleo diet -- as many do find to be true for themselves. Just because it's not true for you doesn't mean it's not true for others.

lindsey1979

Neandermagnon -- I know you're a wealth of information on Paleolithic man. Do you have any information on the differences in the foods we eat today relative to those we ate then?

I wonder because I've been reading a lot on the differences in some modern variations of fruits and vegetables (and grains for that matter) and how many of our modern variants have a lot less of many nutritional items -- like far less antioxidants in modern blueberries found at most stores and those wild varieties from just a few hundred years ago. I've read a good deal about the changes in grain too, especially since the 80s -- so that even our modern bread doesn't offer nearly the nutritional profile it did in our grandparents' time.

Just wondering if you could speak to that as well.

This could also be because of soil nutrient differences. Our soils used to be much more fertile than they are now due to farming.

I'm sure that's a contributing factor in some cases. But varietals aren't as dependent on soil nutrient issues within the spectrum for that varietal.

VeryKatie

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.

Except I never said that. You brought up the modern stuff. I was keeping to the original point. There are tons of reasons for the lifespan differences, I agree. But you must also agree the human body cannot possibly be the same as it was back then. In just the 1600's people were on average one foot shorter. What other changes have we gone through in the past 10,000 years to give need to a different diet to what they ate in the paleo era - this is the point I was making - people change and so do their diets.

Maybe I'm just off point because I'm taking the name of the fad diet too literally. We're not cavemen. But the name of the diet implies we should try to be. This probably should have been my response to you saying apples and gorillas. I do see your point. It makes little sense to compare. But my poorly worded point is that if things have changed so much why do people attribute any degree of importance to the diet (again, I totally do get not eating "plastic food" as I put it - Cheese Whiz, margerine, etc.).

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I'm with Neandermagnon on this -- that there is actually very little biologically different in mankind now and then.

And I would just like to point out that homo habilis still existed in the paleolithic era. The paleolithic era covers thousands upon thousands of years. We are not genetically the same as a homo habilis.

neandermagnon

Neandermagnon -- I know you're a wealth of information on Paleolithic man. Do you have any information on the differences in the foods we eat today relative to those we ate then?

I wonder because I've been reading a lot on the differences in some modern variations of fruits and vegetables (and grains for that matter) and how many of our modern variants have a lot less of many nutritional items -- like far less antioxidants in modern blueberries found at most stores and those wild varieties from just a few hundred years ago. I've read a good deal about the changes in grain too, especially since the 80s -- so that even our modern bread doesn't offer nearly the nutritional profile it did in our grandparents' time.

Just wondering if you could speak to that as well.

the most interesting thing is that people who are descended from dairy farming/herding populations have evolved the ability to digest lactose as adults. This has happened separately in Europeans and the Masai people of Africa (i.e. different mutations happened separately in these populations) - so people have adapted over time to dietary differences that have resulted from post-neolithic culture......... I think the general principle that the paleo diet is based on - that we're adapted to the diets of our ancestors - is good, but it would be more logical to go back to the diet of our ancestors from around 500 years ago. I feel very healthy on a diet of meat, dairy and grains, but I'm descended from people who farmed those things so it shouldn't be surprising.

Also, don't underestimate the adaptability of humans. We're dietary generalists - adapted to be able to adapt our culture to suit new environments which means new diets. Modern breeds of food are different, they're bred to be bigger, sweeter, etc... animals too... farmed animals have very different macros to wild animals, because they've been bred to be docile and fatter. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be eaten - just that we have to be careful not to eat excessive amounts of fat or carbohydrate.

As for wild foods - the wild berries I've picked since returning to the UK taste much better than the frozen ones I bought in Bahrain. Which cost 3 dinars (which is a lot as dinars are worth more than pounds) for the amount that I gathered in about 30 mins, that was including the time I spent supervising the kids and avoiding getting stung by stinging nettles. I think the quality of soil is an issue - wild foods and home grown foods and any small scale farming, the quality of soil is probably better... farming leads to soils becoming depleted of nutrients, and natural fertilisers (like manure) are better at replacing these. But we can't feed the whole world on small scale farming any more, and it's not that modern varieties of food are dangerous or that much lower in nutrients... people can still get a balanced diet and I don't see any need to be puritanical about food.

neandermagnon

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.

Except I never said that. You brought up the modern stuff. I was keeping to the original point. There are tons of reasons for the lifespan differences, I agree. But you must also agree the human body cannot possibly be the same as it was back then. In just the 1600's people were on average one foot shorter. What other changes have we gone through in the past 10,000 years to give need to a different diet to what they ate in the paleo era - this is the point I was making - people change and so do their diets.

Maybe I'm just off point because I'm taking the name of the fad diet too literally. We're not cavemen. But the name of the diet implies we should try to be. This probably should have been my response to you saying apples and gorillas. I do see your point. It makes little sense to compare. But my poorly worded point is that if things have changed so much why do people attribute any degree of importance to the diet (again, I totally do get not eating "plastic food" as I put it - Cheese Whiz, margerine, etc.).

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I'm with Neandermagnon on this -- that there is actually very little biologically different in mankind now and then.

And I would just like to point out that homo habilis still existed in the paleolithic era. The paleolithic era covers thousands upon thousands of years. We are not genetically the same as a homo habilis.

the palaeolithic era was huge... spanning more than 2 million years

H. habilis was different to us

but H. sapiens evolved around 150,000 years ago, and H. sapiens from around 100,000 years ago had similar skeletons to modern humans


ETA: a palaeo diet based on Homo habilis would be interesting - but I think it would make Homo sapiens ill, seeing as humans relied on cooked food long before Homo sapiens evolved. Late Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens all had controlled use of fire and ate cooked meat

cincysweetheart

It depends on what you are doing it for… If that's the eating style that most appeals to you and allows you to enjoy the foods you want…. and fits in with your lifestyle and beliefs, go for it.

If you are looking for weight loss… it is completely unnecessary. It's all about calorie deficit.

If you are looking for weight loss and improved health… I would also argue that it's completely unnecessary (barring certain medical conditions). The truth is… people have lost weight and improved their health following low-carb diets as well as low-fat diets. They have lost weight and improved their health on Paleo diets as well as vegetarian diets. Whether they choose to count calories or macros.

The key is choosing the eating plan that appeals to you and allows you to eat the foods that you like, fits in with your lifestyle/personality/morals, and is something you can keep up for the rest of your life. There is nothing wrong with Paleo if that's what you like and that's what works for you… but IMO, there's nothing magic about it as far as weight loss is concerned or even improved health.

lindsey1979

Neandermagnon -- I know you're a wealth of information on Paleolithic man. Do you have any information on the differences in the foods we eat today relative to those we ate then?

I wonder because I've been reading a lot on the differences in some modern variations of fruits and vegetables (and grains for that matter) and how many of our modern variants have a lot less of many nutritional items -- like far less antioxidants in modern blueberries found at most stores and those wild varieties from just a few hundred years ago. I've read a good deal about the changes in grain too, especially since the 80s -- so that even our modern bread doesn't offer nearly the nutritional profile it did in our grandparents' time.

Just wondering if you could speak to that as well.

the most interesting thing is that people who are descended from dairy farming/herding populations have evolved the ability to digest lactose as adults. This has happened separately in Europeans and the Masai people of Africa (i.e. different mutations happened separately in these populations) - so people have adapted over time to dietary differences that have resulted from post-neolithic culture......... I think the general principle that the paleo diet is based on - that we're adapted to the diets of our ancestors - is good, but it would be more logical to go back to the diet of our ancestors from around 500 years ago. I feel very healthy on a diet of meat, dairy and grains, but I'm descended from people who farmed those things so it shouldn't be surprising.

Also, don't underestimate the adaptability of humans. We're dietary generalists - adapted to be able to adapt our culture to suit new environments which means new diets. Modern breeds of food are different, they're bred to be bigger, sweeter, etc... animals too... farmed animals have very different macros to wild animals, because they've been bred to be docile and fatter. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be eaten - just that we have to be careful not to eat excessive amounts of fat or carbohydrate.

As for wild foods - the wild berries I've picked since returning to the UK taste much better than the frozen ones I bought in Bahrain. Which cost 3 dinars (which is a lot as dinars are worth more than pounds) for the amount that I gathered in about 30 mins, that was including the time I spent supervising the kids and avoiding getting stung by stinging nettles. I think the quality of soil is an issue - wild foods and home grown foods and any small scale farming, the quality of soil is probably better... farming leads to soils becoming depleted of nutrients, and natural fertilisers (like manure) are better at replacing these. But we can't feed the whole world on small scale farming any more, and it's not that modern varieties of food are dangerous or that much lower in nutrients... people can still get a balanced diet and I don't see any need to be puritanical about food.

I think you might be surprised at some of the differences in many fruits and vegetables with even those a few hundred years ago? For example, this is a good book (or at least appears to be): http://www.amazon.com/Eating-Wild-Side-Missing-Optimum/dp/0316227943

I realize that many modern variants were chosen for their high yield potential. But to pretend that there wasn't a trade-off in nutrient profile for at least some of them seems to be contrary to some facts.

I wouldn't go as far to say that modern variants are dangerous, but I do think we have lost the nutrient profile for many fruits and vegetables over the years in favor of higher yield and greater palatability (usually high sugar -- which makes sense on multiple levels, but not good in a modern landscape where scarcity of food isn't an issue).

neandermagnon

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.

Yeah but honestly people only make that argument because it is the direct counter argument of why people choose to eat Paleo. People choose that because they think that's it's healthy. Because it's what we where "meant" to have. But fact is we weren't meant to have modern medicine. We weren't meant to have good sanitation. At least our bodies where not. Looking to our caveman days as an example of how to build a healthy diet and lifestyle because it's what we were "meant" to do is itself ridiculous. Because while there is a reason to avoid living on processed or junk food. There is absolutely ZERO reason to adopt the restrictions a true paleo diet would have you adopt.

I do agree that I think a lot of it is marketing, not a statement about archaeology, anthropology, etc.. However, there is at least a theory in biological evolution -- that we were adapted to those foods back then better than we do to certain things more prevalent in the modern diet. For example, difficulty many have with grains, gluten and/or dairy or the apparent increase in autoimmune diseases and insulin resistance in recent times are two hypothesized results of such dissonance. I'm not saying it's correct, but that is the loose theory (in laymen terms, not as used by scientists). And those are all very good reasons for eating some version of the Paleo diet -- as many do find to be true for themselves. Just because it's not true for you doesn't mean it's not true for others.

There is truth in this...... the problem is that it ignores the fact that some populations have adapted to post-neolithic diets (e.g. the ability to digest lactose as adults in Europeans and Masai people) and also the diet commonly pushed as "paleo" online bears no resemblence to actual hunter-gatherer diets. But people descended from populations that have been hunter-gatherers until recently (e.g. native Australians) do have much higher rates of lactose intolerance and there's probably similar things going on with some foods that were not eaten in large quantities until after the neolithic era or industrial era. So it's not complete bunk. Just that it's not been executed well and a lot of important scientific points have been disregarded. and the people promoting it have no idea what palaeolithic people actually ate. Hence the witchetty grub gif I posted earlier in the thread.
it comes down to the fact that if a food makes you ill, you shouldn't eat it, if it doesn't then there's no reason not to eat it.

neandermagnon

Neandermagnon -- I know you're a wealth of information on Paleolithic man. Do you have any information on the differences in the foods we eat today relative to those we ate then?

I wonder because I've been reading a lot on the differences in some modern variations of fruits and vegetables (and grains for that matter) and how many of our modern variants have a lot less of many nutritional items -- like far less antioxidants in modern blueberries found at most stores and those wild varieties from just a few hundred years ago. I've read a good deal about the changes in grain too, especially since the 80s -- so that even our modern bread doesn't offer nearly the nutritional profile it did in our grandparents' time.

Just wondering if you could speak to that as well.

the most interesting thing is that people who are descended from dairy farming/herding populations have evolved the ability to digest lactose as adults. This has happened separately in Europeans and the Masai people of Africa (i.e. different mutations happened separately in these populations) - so people have adapted over time to dietary differences that have resulted from post-neolithic culture......... I think the general principle that the paleo diet is based on - that we're adapted to the diets of our ancestors - is good, but it would be more logical to go back to the diet of our ancestors from around 500 years ago. I feel very healthy on a diet of meat, dairy and grains, but I'm descended from people who farmed those things so it shouldn't be surprising.

Also, don't underestimate the adaptability of humans. We're dietary generalists - adapted to be able to adapt our culture to suit new environments which means new diets. Modern breeds of food are different, they're bred to be bigger, sweeter, etc... animals too... farmed animals have very different macros to wild animals, because they've been bred to be docile and fatter. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be eaten - just that we have to be careful not to eat excessive amounts of fat or carbohydrate.

As for wild foods - the wild berries I've picked since returning to the UK taste much better than the frozen ones I bought in Bahrain. Which cost 3 dinars (which is a lot as dinars are worth more than pounds) for the amount that I gathered in about 30 mins, that was including the time I spent supervising the kids and avoiding getting stung by stinging nettles. I think the quality of soil is an issue - wild foods and home grown foods and any small scale farming, the quality of soil is probably better... farming leads to soils becoming depleted of nutrients, and natural fertilisers (like manure) are better at replacing these. But we can't feed the whole world on small scale farming any more, and it's not that modern varieties of food are dangerous or that much lower in nutrients... people can still get a balanced diet and I don't see any need to be puritanical about food.

I think you might be surprised at some of the differences in many fruits and vegetables with even those a few hundred years ago? For example, this is a good book (or at least appears to be): http://www.amazon.com/Eating-Wild-Side-Missing-Optimum/dp/0316227943

I realize that many modern variants were chosen for their high yield potential. But to pretend that there wasn't a trade-off in nutrient profile for at least some of them seems to be contrary to some facts.

I wouldn't go as far to say that modern variants are dangerous, but I do think we have lost the nutrient profile for many fruits and vegetables over the years in favor of higher yield and greater palatability (usually high sugar -- which makes sense on multiple levels, but not good in a modern landscape where scarcity of food isn't an issue).

I don't doubt you - I just think that these things have been exaggerated - a book on amazon =/= a peer reviewed study. Also, it's not necessarily genetic differences in the plants. Plants grown in poor soils have a worse nutrient profile than those grown in rich soils - it's easy to cherry-pick data like this. And there's a big difference between comparing wild varieties and cultivated varities (which are quite different usually) and statements that what we eat now is different to what our grandparents ate... it's the latter that I would question much more than the former.

Wild foods probably are more nutrient dense - but it's impossible to feed everyone on wild foods. Intensive farming is necessary for a population of 7 billion. Bizarrely, wild foods are likely to end up being a luxury of the rich. I mean, I can't afford to eat venison and as I live in the UK it's illegal to hunt venison. But my palaeolithic ancestors probably ate loads of venison. And venison has better macros than beef.

kelseyhere

I tried it, can't do it. Makes my stomach upset and I actually gained weight from eating all that meat. My calories were lower than normal when I was on paleo (more like 1500 compared to the 1800-2000 I eat now). Mostly they were lower because it was hard to eat that many calories of paleo foods. But again, even though I was eating less overall, I still gained weight.

Now I still try to eat mostly veggies, fruits and lean meats, but I also eat 1-2 servings of starchy foods daily, like a slice of toast with breakfast or a side of rice with dinner. Totally eliminating starches didn't agree with my stomach, eating the 1-2 servings I feel much better.

lindsey1979

I do agree that I think a lot of it is marketing, not a statement about archaeology, anthropology, etc.. However, there is at least a theory in biological evolution -- that we were adapted to those foods back then better than we do to certain things more prevalent in the modern diet. For example, difficulty many have with grains, gluten and/or dairy or the apparent increase in autoimmune diseases and insulin resistance in recent times are two hypothesized results of such dissonance. I'm not saying it's correct, but that is the loose theory (in laymen terms, not as used by scientists). And those are all very good reasons for eating some version of the Paleo diet -- as many do find to be true for themselves. Just because it's not true for you doesn't mean it's not true for others.

There is truth in this...... the problem is that it ignores the fact that some populations have adapted to post-neolithic diets (e.g. the ability to digest lactose as adults in Europeans and Masai people) and also the diet commonly pushed as "paleo" online bears no resemblence to actual hunter-gatherer diets. But people descended from populations that have been hunter-gatherers until recently (e.g. native Australians) do have much higher rates of lactose intolerance and there's probably similar things going on with some foods that were not eaten in large quantities until after the neolithic era or industrial era. So it's not complete bunk. Just that it's not been executed well and a lot of important scientific points have been disregarded. and the people promoting it have no idea what palaeolithic people actually ate. Hence the witchetty grub gif I posted earlier in the thread.
it comes down to the fact that if a food makes you ill, you shouldn't eat it, if it doesn't then there's no reason not to eat it.

I agree with you for the most part. I just think there is a more of a spectrum of what "makes you sick" than many people realize until they try it.

I'll take myself as an example. I had no big digestive issues, that I knew of, prior to eating Primal. No horrible GERD, IBS, inflammation in my joints, bad skin, etc. When I tried it, it was mostly just to be supportive of my husband at the time. But, I did find that I felt sooooo much better on it. Before things I just chalked up to aging, or being at a desk job, etc. were far more linked to my diet than I ever realized. Now, if you were a person with some of the major intestinal issues or undiagnosable inflammation issues, the change in diet probably did feel like a miracle for those with such issues.

I also found for myself that I actually did have some issues that I was previously unaware of that probably were exacerbated by many of the things in the modern diet (likely gluten in my case) -- for me, a thyroid condition and insulin resistance. But up until I finally got a proper diagnosis, the only thing that did help was the change in diet -- and it was a huge difference for me, even if it wasn't as big as it could be for some others.

I suspect that there are quite a few people like me in our population (they suspect that over 40% of the adult US population has insulin resistance at pre-diabetic or diabetic levels) -- no huge glaring issues that do find themselves feeling a lot better on a paleo-like diet because they have some spectrum of intolerance. But they don't realize it until they totally switch up their diet. Of course, there are plenty of others that don't notice a difference and it's all the same to them. I just suspect that there are a lot of people with minor-ish issues out there of which they're unaware and a change to a paleo-like diet may help them immensely.

lauradenslinger

I have done it. It's a fine way of eating, but I personally just need a more flexible diet. I have had issues with binge eating, and the only way for me to eat healthy and not binge out is to have a less restrictive diet. I don't say restrictive as unhealthy; I don't think the paleo way of eating is unhealthy-- just too restrictive for me. When I eat a more strict diet, I just count down the hours to a cheat meal. When I am more flexbile while still staying in my calories and getting the correct nutrients and macros, I don't even think about it.

RHachicho

I would like to point out that I experienced pretty much the same thing just cleaning up my diet. It doesn't mean I have to forbid myself any foods. Yes it's true going Paleo probably removed several aggravating factors from your diet which lead to feeling a lot healthier. But that does not mean that "Going Paleo" Made you healthy. You are probably carrying several unnecessary restrictions along with the ones that actually did you any good. In the end Paleo will do no harm to be sure. But if you miss some of those old foods in all likeleyhood you could eat some or even most of them again in moderation without a problem. If you believe you will be unable to exercise moderation you have stumbled accross my only reason for going full Paleo. But that is not a virtue of the diet.

Wetcoaster

This is a very good article from Scientific American........that be said eat how you like.


How to Really Eat Like a Hunter-Gatherer: Why the Paleo Diet Is Half-Baked

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-paleo-diet-half-baked-how-hunter-gatherer-really-eat/