Paleo/Primal way of eating = finally the truth revealed?

amyhollar

I'm extremely curious about the claim that "cavemen only ate 80 g of carbs per day"

The term "caveman" refers very generically to early hominids, from all the way back to australopithecus, 5 million years ago, to neanderthal, so how can you claim with any sort of accuracy that early man ate one same level of carbohydrates (even approximately) for over 5 million years? That is so illogical it boggles the mind.

I am no expert on the topic and sorry for using the word caveman loosely.

I think Mark Sissal quoted the 80g figure in his book - but I dont know where he got it from. In Loren Cordain's Paleo Diet book he claims to have done some research on the last remaining hunter gather societies today. Analysis of their diet shows they consume anywhere between 22% - 40% of their diet as carbs. How many grams that equates to I dont know. Is it correct? I dont know. I will let the experts to take it up. Does eating only 80g of carbs a day make you loose weight? - well it did for me -and I am sure the experts will have an opinion on that too.

No one is saying you can't loose weight by cutting carbs (you sure can!), just objecting to the idea that it is the way we are "naturally meant" to eat.

And for the record, you should ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS know the data people are basing their claims on, especially ones like these, if you are going to accept them as fact.

Ask questions, do your own research, analyze other peoples data YOURSELF, and draw your OWN conclusions.

LuckyLeprechaun

There's LOTS of ways to lose weight. Some more healthy and balanced than others. Some more long-lasting than others. I say, to each his own. BUT I object strenuously to any line of thinking that excludes all others. (Not just in the category of weight loss, either.) I strongly dislike any mindset that states, "ONLY I am correct, and everyone else is wrong."

And I really really dislike it when MFP newbies see threads on (insert fad diet here) and realize that they have finally found the "secret". There is no secret. Healthful eating plus excercise equals good results. I don't want to see newbies sent down the path to frustration. So that's why I speak up...:flowerforyou:

LuckyLeprechaun

In Loren Cordain's Paleo Diet book he claims to have done some research on the last remaining hunter gather societies today. Analysis of their diet shows they consume anywhere between 22% - 40% of their diet as carbs.

Who says they are healthy?

pyro13g

In Loren Cordain's Paleo Diet book he claims to have done some research on the last remaining hunter gather societies today. Analysis of their diet shows they consume anywhere between 22% - 40% of their diet as carbs.

Who says they are healthy?

The analysis done on their health over time, sited in the book ad nauseum. Same testing any Dr would give any of us. Any shortening of lifespan is environmental and lack of vaccination against preventable disease.

LuckyLeprechaun

Any shortening of lifespan is environmental and lack of vaccination against preventable disease.

This seems like a HUGE assumption.

pyro13g

Any shortening of lifespan is environmental and lack of vaccination against preventable disease.

This seems like a HUGE assumption.

Sorry, science, no assumption. Next time you get a splinter that gets infected, don't get treated and see how long you last.

LuckyLeprechaun

Any shortening of lifespan is environmental and lack of vaccination against preventable disease.

This seems like a HUGE assumption.

Sorry, science, no assumption. Next time you get a splinter that gets infected, don't get treated and see how long you last.

no, just because A causes B does not mean that B causes A.

the assumption that any shortening of lifespan is *only* environmental and due to a lack of vaccines leaves no room for any *other* cause of short lifespan. Note: I didn't say those things don't shorten lifespan, I just question the hard and fast assumption that those are the ONLY reasons for the shortening of lifespan. I could jump to an equally unsound conclusion: look, no grains, means a short lifespan. Just because 2 facts appear together doesn't prove a causational relationship.

Logic.

amysj303

In Loren Cordain's Paleo Diet book he claims to have done some research on the last remaining hunter gather societies today. Analysis of their diet shows they consume anywhere between 22% - 40% of their diet as carbs.

Who says they are healthy?

The analysis done on their health over time, sited in the book ad nauseum. Same testing any Dr would give any of us. Any shortening of lifespan is environmental and lack of vaccination against preventable disease.

I just have to say something, that is that a Dr. doing tests on us cannot do that to the remains early humans! BP, blood tests, and so on could not be done. I think the Paleo diet sounds like a good way of eating but the "science" is sketchy at best.
As far as grain being given to starving people in the world, it is just easier to store and transport as anything fresh would quickly rot without refrigeration.
As far as not being treated for infection, our bodies fight off most of the infections we get from splinters and other minor abrasions and do not require treatment by antibiotics, although, certainly some of those infections could lead to tetnus, staph or other deadly infections; but people still die of those infections.

pyro13g

A closed mind. The reasons for shortening of lifespan and lack of Syndrome X afflictions were arrived at from the widely adopted concept of Scientific Method.

lodro

Whenever this topic comes up I always think, who decided cavemen were better off than us?

Also, didn't they just eat whatever was available? I find it hard to imagine cavemen evaluating the nutritional content of their food options before drawing up a diet plan and telling all their cavemen friends "NO GRAIN! TOO MANY CARBS! <grunt>".

Well, of course agriculture and an abundant supply of grain and carbohydrates are very recent developments. Carbohydrates before that were fruits, berries, but also tubers, that contained more starch: simply what was available and most of the time that wasn't much. Also, feeding patterns were markedly different: fasting or eating very little, or only protein for a while, then feasting a short while on an abundance of carbs, then fat and protein, then fasting. Much more irregular than how we eat now. But even 50 years ago, fruit was in short supply during the year except in summer.

As for the low lifespan of our ancestors: the archeological record points out that "before agriculture" lifespans were longer, people were taller. A short average lifespan is caused by high peri-natal death rates.

pyro13g

In Loren Cordain's Paleo Diet book he claims to have done some research on the last remaining hunter gather societies today. Analysis of their diet shows they consume anywhere between 22% - 40% of their diet as carbs.

Who says they are healthy?

The analysis done on their health over time, sited in the book ad nauseum. Same testing any Dr would give any of us. Any shortening of lifespan is environmental and lack of vaccination against preventable disease.

I just have to say something, that is that a Dr. doing tests on us cannot do that to the remains early humans! BP, blood tests, and so on could not be done. I think the Paleo diet sounds like a good way of eating but the "science" is sketchy at best.
As far as grain being given to starving people in the world, it is just easier to store and transport as anything fresh would quickly rot without refrigeration.
As far as not being treated for infection, our bodies fight off most of the infections we get from splinters and other minor abrasions and do not require treatment by antibiotics, although, certainly some of those infections could lead to tetnus, staph or other deadly infections; but people still die of those infections.

The testing was done on existing hunter gatherer cultures that modern technology and Dr's have had access to over the years. There are few such cultures left. Blood born infection is very common, even from a simple splinter and these cultures live in much more hostile environments then our concrete jungles. All the little things we survive from modern medicine and antibodies passed down kill quite often in those cultures, not to mention the threats we will never experience. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

Azdak

Any diet that claims "truth" and exclusivity should be rejected as a matter of course. No respectable scientist or health professional would ever use that language.

lodro

Any shortening of lifespan is environmental and lack of vaccination against preventable disease.

This seems like a HUGE assumption.

Sorry, science, no assumption. Next time you get a splinter that gets infected, don't get treated and see how long you last.

no, just because A causes B does not mean that B causes A.

the assumption that any shortening of lifespan is *only* environmental and due to a lack of vaccines leaves no room for any *other* cause of short lifespan. Note: I didn't say those things don't shorten lifespan, I just question the hard and fast assumption that those are the ONLY reasons for the shortening of lifespan. I could jump to an equally unsound conclusion: look, no grains, means a short lifespan. Just because 2 facts appear together doesn't prove a causational relationship.

Logic.

However: This doesn't mean that even the large majority of early human populations only reached the age of 40 (or 55, the traditional "wall of death") Here's an interesting study to suggest that older females and older males (especially the latter, age 60 - 70) were a substantial part of early human populations:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1949148/

Our analysis of mating patterns shows that productive mating between men older than the age of female menopause and younger women was likely a feature of early human life. Even when life was much shorter than today there was a reasonable supply of older males: among hunter gatherers with an expected lifespan of 33.5 yrs, the ratio of 70 yr olds to 30 yr olds was about 0.32 and to 40 yr olds was about 0.37 [5]. Therefore natural selection should have acted against survival-reducing mutations and delayed the onset of rapid senescence for as much as two decades past female menopause.

LuckyLeprechaun

A closed mind.

ad hominem: to attack the person making the argument rather than attack the substance of the argument. Generally an indicator of a weak argument...

ladyhawk00

A closed mind. The reasons for shortening of lifespan and lack of Syndrome X afflictions were arrived at from the widely adopted concept of Scientific Method.

Interesting to note, however, that these same hunter/gatherers often develop their own, unique diseases. Such as the case of Creutzfeld-Jakob disease, which was discovered in part by tracing back to cannibalism among primitive cultures- which is, despite its abhorrent nature to us, quite a "natural" and long-standing practice among many hunter/gatherer societies. The very idea of "using the whole animal" in the sense that primitive cultures did, is what brought about Mad Cow disease (the bovine form of spongiform encephalitis or CJD). Claiming that their diets were "perfect" has quite a few flaws when you actually put their diets into practice.

The assertion that primitive cultures had no disease or shortening of lifespan related to diet because their diets were a "perfect" ratio of macronutrients is absurd. Granted, we have added and discovered new diseases. But the fact that diseases were not known among primitive or paleo cultures (most of which have never been or never can be examined fully enough to determine their true health levels) does NOT mean they didn't exist or that they didn't have their own UNIQUE diseases. Many of our "newly" developed diseases and illnesses DO come from unhealthy diets (I don't think anyone would dispute that McD's simply ain't good for us) but many have also simply never been seen until the 20th century because of our GREATLY increased lifespan, GREATLY reduced morbidity (more people who "should not" [based on natural selection and disease susceptibility in genes] live through infancy/childhood to GET diseases) and GREATLY increased medical access and advancements in technology.

Mindful_Trent

Any diet that claims "truth" and exclusivity should be rejected as a matter of course. No respectable scientist or health professional would ever use that language.

Exactly how I feel about it... well said.

lodro

Very happy that someone pointed out that human flesh constituted one of mankind's earliest and most widely consumed protein sources.

caprica

ok .. so the title of this thread is "paleo/primal truth revealed".

Here is my take on the "truth" bit.

Paleo / primal sells the idea that you too can have the body of a "caveman". All you have to do is eat the modern equivalent of what they ate and do the modern equivalent of the kind of activities they do.

At the heart of it is a sales pitch to the forty something blokes who have lived the life of a cubical dweller and now want to do something about their widening girth and maybe get back to their blokey roots (ughhhhhhhhhh grrrrrrr roarrr ... ). It is the modern equivalent of the old fashioned idea of blokes going off into the woods and doing man stuff. Except they do it in nice air conditioned gyms doing "cross fit" and probably eat expensive food and even more expensive supplements from some funky organic grocery store. Some women like the idea to. So they join in as well.

The upside of it is, in all the hype and hoopla, there are some good basic ideas in it - you know the ones about eating better food, getting more exercise, playing with your kids more, etc. The diet also promote flexibility - i.e. stick to the healthy stuff 80% of the time and a couple of meals a week it is ok to have some 'sometimes' food.

The downside of it is of course it is a business. People make money selling the caveman dream and gurus will naturally stretch the science to make a buck. The other downside is people become religious about it and then they become outright pains in the butt, wanna argue nutrition with you and become just painful to be around.

So what does all that mean? well like bruce lee always said - absorb what is useful and discard the rest. For me I read the books on my Ipad whilst on yet another red eye flight. The books motivated me to change a few things and it made me happier. At the end of the day paelo is just like my ipad - I dont really need it, but it is kind of a neat idea.

Anyway I am off to bed - up at 3 am to catch my 5 am flight. oh joy ........................................ but at least today I ate steak for lunch, lifted some heavy things after work and then played with my kid ..... so it is good to be a wannabe cave dweller for a brief moment instead of a cubical dweller ....................

kdiamond

I can't possibly understand what anyone could argue over this way of eating.

It isn't a money making "scam" business unless YOU allow it to be. Honestly, with all of the Jenny Craig/South Beach Diet/Nutrisystem/P90X crap out there that costs a TON, eating Paleo costs NOTHING more than the cost of regular food you buy at the grocery store and tons of free info out there on the Internet (there are a billion free recipe sites out there that are awesome). How can anyone argue that eating all natural, non-processed foods is not the way to go?

(And yes, I know us Paleo people can be very self righteous, which I really try not to be and it isn't a good way to be, but we are very passionate about what we put in our bodies!)

And the reason we know what cavemen eat is simple and documented...we KNOW what foods were around in those days based on historic facts and data...we also know for a fact that grains were invented, refined and cultivated to feed people in relatively recent times. Its not to say I don't enjoy a plate of pasta, but our bodies do not NEED it for survival.

And I certainly can attest that eating this way has done my body a world of good. I have abs I never thought I did. I don't watch carbs at all, I choose the right ones and eat fruits, veggies, lean meats and do enjoy the occasional treat, but my body doesn't enjoy those treats as much as it used to. I can feel the effects of eating badly so quickly after that it makes me want to continue to eat better. I also don't follow it 100% - I eat some dairy every day and occasional oatmeal - but I'm at about 90% and it still continues to better me.

So for all of the skeptics out there, I challenge you to go Paleo for 30 days and see how you feel...

freerange

Where are her sources for these remarkable claims?? "learn to be a master of your own genetic destiny" !!!!! This is outrageous! I did a Masters degree in gene expression, by the way.

Well you should be able to tell us then. Where in our genes is it "expressed" that humans should be eating big macs, mac and cheese, refined sugar, hormone injected milk, and the list is very, very, very long?