Hunter-gatherers vs Westerners

weathergirl320

Right. There is no classification OMNIVORA. Say it loud and often THERE IS NO CLASS called OMNIVORA.. What might the reason be? Because OMNIVIORE IS NOT A TAXON OR PHYSIOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION.

I think I have been trying to make this point for some time.

erm. do you have some short term memory loss problem? Only about two posts ago you wrote this:

"You thought wrong. They are in the class CARNIVORA. Only animals in the class OMNIVORA are omnivores."

yours, very confused.

That was a set up. Of course I know there is no class OMNIVORA. But there is a class CARNIVORA. Why do you suppose?

The classification system does not have to do with diet but rather with heredity. All creatures in the class CARNIVORA came from a line of creatures that was a carnivore. If it was based on diet alone, don't you think they would have shifted the Giant Panda out? Your reliance verbal loopholes and syntax prove that you really have no argument.

Careful, you start tell the professor he is full of crap and he will take his toys and go home (put you on ignore) like does does with others that see thru his BS

Haha. Haven't commented on this thread yet because its just such an old argument. But you really make me laugh.

girlinahat

The study DOES differentiate between red meat and processed meat. Would you like me to help you read it again? The morbidity rates for processed meats were given separately, and were much higher.

I would not suggest that you read the original study if a newspaper article about the study is giving you so much trouble.

What I mostly don't understand is how you constantly feel the need to talk to other people as if the are incapable of understanding simply because they happen to disagree with the viewpoints and evidence you are using to put across your 'arguments'.

I don't have journal access to read the study but since you like statistics so much you might like this:

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=5164

I always consider that I am probably more likely to get hit by a bus than make it to old age so I'll just carry on with my good quality wholefood diet thanks. Eat a veg*n diet if you please but it is a choice that you are able to make due to the society you live in, and it's not for me.

_VoV

The study DOES differentiate between red meat and processed meat. Would you like me to help you read it again? The morbidity rates for processed meats were given separately, and were much higher.

I would not suggest that you read the original study if a newspaper article about the study is giving you so much trouble.

What I mostly don't understand is how you constantly feel the need to talk to other people as if the are incapable of understanding simply because they happen to disagree with the viewpoints and evidence you are using to put across your 'arguments'.

I don't have journal access to read the study but since you like statistics so much you might like this:

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=5164

I always consider that I am probably more likely to get hit by a bus than make it to old age so I'll just carry on with my good quality wholefood diet thanks. Eat a veg*n diet if you please but it is a choice that you are able to make due to the society you live in, and it's not for me.

I might point out that the choice of your meat-inclusive diet is also due to the society you live in--thanks to corn, beef and dairy farm subsidies that artificially deflate the cost of those foods. Take a look at how luxurious your level of meat consumption is from a global perspective:

http://chartsbin.com/view/bhy

VegesaurusRex

The study DOES differentiate between red meat and processed meat. Would you like me to help you read it again? The morbidity rates for processed meats were given separately, and were much higher.

I would not suggest that you read the original study if a newspaper article about the study is giving you so much trouble.

What I mostly don't understand is how you constantly feel the need to talk to other people as if the are incapable of understanding simply because they happen to disagree with the viewpoints and evidence you are using to put across your 'arguments'.


No, that is not true. I was arguing with a fellow here (I believe) on human ancestors. We disagree, but he understood and argued appropriately. We still disagree, but he understood what I was saying. You, on the other hand seem to be purposely misunderstanding.

I don't have journal access to read the study but since you like statistics so much you might like this:

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=5164

Very cleverly written article. Not having actuarial tables, I nonetheless would assume that the figures they gave are correct. Also the math looks good. Only problem is they figured the odds of death at age 40, and as long as they do that it looks trivial. However, if they had figured the entire population of meat eaters dying at an 18% higher rate EACH YEAR, and they compared that population to the non-meat-eating population which would be dying at a slower rate, EACH YEAR you would see a really big difference as both populations started to age. Clever. good example of how statistics can be used to say the opposite of what is really occurring.

I always consider that I am probably more likely to get hit by a bus than make it to old age so I'll just carry on with my good quality wholefood diet thanks. Eat a veg*n diet if you please but it is a choice that you are able to make due to the society you live in, and it's not for me.

Whoa! Where are you? UK? (You said rubbish before) I can't talk about there, but here we have massive governmental subsidies on meat, dairy and associated products. I am paying via my taxes so poor people can eat a hamberger for $1. Disgusting. I guess our government wants to kill off the poor, and it seems to be working with obesity and childhood diabetes.

But you are also right about vegan diets. Vegetarians and vegans are generally richer, more intelligent and better educated than the rest of the population (and yes, I do have cites if you want them.) It is not clear whether they become vegan because they are more intelligent or whether being vegan makes them more intelligent, but yes, vegetarianism is much more prevalent in the upper classes, in the educated classes than in the poorer less educated classes.

But you are wrong about needing civilization to be able to afford to eat vegan, at least outside of the USA. As I have pointed out as an example, in India the average person eats about 7 pounds of meat per year. In the US it is close to 300 per year. Vegetarianism is in fact the diet of most of the world's poor, just not in the US.

girlinahat

Rex - a simple question since it appears I am not alone in being somewhat put off by your condescending manner. Is it just me who you target due to my apparent gleeful misinterpreting of what you are saying or do you think there's a conspiracy here?

Need2bfit918

The study DOES differentiate between red meat and processed meat. Would you like me to help you read it again? The morbidity rates for processed meats were given separately, and were much higher.

I would not suggest that you read the original study if a newspaper article about the study is giving you so much trouble.

What I mostly don't understand is how you constantly feel the need to talk to other people as if the are incapable of understanding simply because they happen to disagree with the viewpoints and evidence you are using to put across your 'arguments'.

I don't have journal access to read the study but since you like statistics so much you might like this:

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=5164

I always consider that I am probably more likely to get hit by a bus than make it to old age so I'll just carry on with my good quality wholefood diet thanks. Eat a veg*n diet if you please but it is a choice that you are able to make due to the society you live in, and it's not for me.

I might point out that the choice of your meat-inclusive diet is also due to the society you live in--thanks to corn, beef and dairy farm subsidies that artificially deflate the cost of those foods. Take a look at how luxurious your level of meat consumption is from a global perspective:

http://chartsbin.com/view/bhy

for the record the dairy industry doesn't receive much in the way of subsidies, and though I'm not sure about the beef industry i don't think its as much as people think. the most subsidized is the corn and overall grain industries. actually if not for the government meat and dairy could be cheaper. Government ethanol mandates have drove prices up.

Rhea30

I just read an interesting study on how hunter-gatherers burn about the same number of calories as Westerners do. You would think all that physically-demanding food gathering over the course of the day would burn tons of calories, but it apparently doesn't. What do you think? Are the laws of thermodynamics more complicated than we think?


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725200304.htm

Maybe they were not as active as we assume them to be as hunters and gathers. Once they had hunted and gather their food they might had time to be sedentary like many of us are now.

VelociMama

This thread WAS an interesting read until it got derailed...

*sigh*

VegesaurusRex

Rex - a simple question since it appears I am not alone in being somewhat put off by your condescending manner. Is it just me who you target due to my apparent gleeful misinterpreting of what you are saying or do you think there's a conspiracy here?

I am not "targeting" you. You respond. I respond. Some people appear to be open minded, although they may not in reality be open minded, but I think you said it all when you pointed to the statistical study: you said something to the effect that even though there is a higher mortality rate for meat-eaters, you didn't care, and you were going to continue doing what you were doing. Actually, I shouldn't fault you for being honest. I think most meat eaters don't really care what the mortality or morbidity rate is (let's not forget morbidity - even if cancer heart disease doesn't kill you, it could cripple you.)

In any event I suppose I am exactly the same. Since I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, even if it were discovered that not eating meat would lower your life span by 20 years, I would still not eat meat. But Paleos seem to be health oriented, but when pushed, they just like what they like. (I know you are not a Paleo.)

VegesaurusRex

The study DOES differentiate between red meat and processed meat. Would you like me to help you read it again? The morbidity rates for processed meats were given separately, and were much higher.

I would not suggest that you read the original study if a newspaper article about the study is giving you so much trouble.

What I mostly don't understand is how you constantly feel the need to talk to other people as if the are incapable of understanding simply because they happen to disagree with the viewpoints and evidence you are using to put across your 'arguments'.

I don't have journal access to read the study but since you like statistics so much you might like this:

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=5164

I always consider that I am probably more likely to get hit by a bus than make it to old age so I'll just carry on with my good quality wholefood diet thanks. Eat a veg*n diet if you please but it is a choice that you are able to make due to the society you live in, and it's not for me.

I might point out that the choice of your meat-inclusive diet is also due to the society you live in--thanks to corn, beef and dairy farm subsidies that artificially deflate the cost of those foods. Take a look at how luxurious your level of meat consumption is from a global perspective:

http://chartsbin.com/view/bhy

for the record the dairy industry doesn't receive much in the way of subsidies, and though I'm not sure about the beef industry i don't think its as much as people think. the most subsidized is the corn and overall grain industries. actually if not for the government meat and dairy could be cheaper. Government ethanol mandates have drove prices up.

That is a massive misstatement. First of all, the corn industry is the beef industry. We were just out in Iowa about a month ago. over 80% of Iowas massive corn harvest goes to feedlots. Water rights are huge out West, and they favor farmers and cattlemen. And this year, for example, there is a massive drought, so the government, which subsidizes about 80% of farm insurance will pay farmers for their lost crops. The bill will be in billions of dollars.

The government subsidy in meat and dairy is astronomical, and don't believe the crap put out by the industry itself.

Rhea30

Are you exercising as much as they do?

I do believe exercise can control weight, and I am somewhat suspicious about this study because the results are counter intuitive (doesn't make them wrong, of course.)

I do not give any credence at all to the "Paleo" diet, but it stands to reason that a farmer who works all day in the field burns more calories than a typical sedentary American.

You give no credence to the "paleo" diet (love the talking marks, makes me thing you're talking about someone's dirty socks...)? Interesting. Now I'll bet if I said I give no credence to the "vegetarian" diet you'd have something to say about that eh? Not that I do. My daughter is a staunch vegetarian in a paleo/primal family and if we're talking about hunter/gatherer's then there it is. Just what is it about my 'no grains/refined sugar/processed foods/limited dairy' diet that lacks credence?

Ooohhh. I'm going to go get some popcorn.

There are no scientific studies proving the long-term health of the Paleo diet because the average life in the Paleolithic era ended in the mid-30s.

Because of the limitation on dairy, the diet is also low in calcium, though a lot of people take supplements, which when you think about it, it kind of defeats the purpose of eating like a caveman if you have to take a supplement. Or maybe they had something like GNC in Stone Age times?

The diet is also based on the premise that grains are unhealthy (even whole grains) because human biology has not adapted to agriculture but studies prove otherwise. There is also evidence that Paleolithic societies were refining grain, so what's the point of the modern Paleo plan?
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/10/08/1006993107

Paleo people were supposed to be free from disease, but evidence has shown that is not the case:
http://www.jonbarron.org/natural-health/tyrolean-iceman-common-health-problems-paleo-diet

The diet may also be unsustainable, as the world cannot support 7 billion people all eating meat, which in any case differs from the meat fed in Paleolithic times because it contains growth hormones and antibiotics, but even if you can buy grass-fed beef for you and your family, we don't have enough land to do that for 7 billion.

Sorry to break it to you, but you are on a fad diet. Like all fads, there is some truth to it--too much sugar and high-glycemic foods should be treated with caution, but not all grains are high glycemic and not all fruits are low glycemic.

But like all fads, Paleo is based on about 10 percent truth and 90 percent bunk.

I have to agree, when I looked it up myself and asked about it on here I was shock that it doesn't allow grains stating people in the paleolithic period didn't eat grains and that isn't true at all. They ate whatever was accessible to them and at times it was grains. Of course it wasn't as processed as it is now (which the process of grains I'm sure helped humans get to where we are today, sorry as a species we are pretty successful since the process of grains helps us get more from them) but if it was available it was getting ate. It had alot to do to at what period in the paleolithic era and what region since we were advancing during this time. To try to mimic the true era you would need to go out and hunt and gather, if you're doing that and food doesn't come by easy, you won't snob grains.

tidmutt

I have to agree, when I looked it up myself and asked about it on here I was shock that it doesn't allow grains stating people in the paleolithic period didn't eat grains and that isn't true at all. They ate whatever was accessible to them and at times it was grains. Of course it wasn't as processed as it is now (which the process of grains I'm sure helped humans get to where we are today, sorry as a species we are pretty successful since the process of grains helps us get more from them) but if it was available it was getting ate. It had alot to do to at what period in the paleolithic era and what region since we were advancing during this time. To try to mimic the true era you would need to go out and hunt and gather, if you're doing that and food doesn't come by easy, you won't snob grains.

There is some proof to support Paleolithic man eating some grains, but not to the extent we do and as you said, not as processed. Yes, grains and agriculture are responsible to some extent for our success, it's a cheap, readily available source of calories once you learn how to cultivate and process them. All of that means very little in terms of the question, are grains healthy, especially in the volume we tend to consume them. Corn and products derived from it is in a staggering amount of food products. Paleo type diets attempt to limit this consumption on the basis that prior to agriculture we probably ate much less of it.

Rhea30

I have to agree, when I looked it up myself and asked about it on here I was shock that it doesn't allow grains stating people in the paleolithic period didn't eat grains and that isn't true at all. They ate whatever was accessible to them and at times it was grains. Of course it wasn't as processed as it is now (which the process of grains I'm sure helped humans get to where we are today, sorry as a species we are pretty successful since the process of grains helps us get more from them) but if it was available it was getting ate. It had alot to do to at what period in the paleolithic era and what region since we were advancing during this time. To try to mimic the true era you would need to go out and hunt and gather, if you're doing that and food doesn't come by easy, you won't snob grains.

There is some proof to support Paleolithic man eating some grains, but not to the extent we do and as you said, not as processed. Yes, grains and agriculture are responsible to some extent for our success, it's a cheap, readily available source of calories once you learn how to cultivate and process them. All of that means very little in terms of the question, are grains healthy, especially in the volume we tend to consume them. Corn and products derived from it is in a staggering amount of food products. Paleo type diets attempt to limit this consumption on the basis that prior to agriculture we probably ate much less of it.

Does the Paleo just limit or does it restrict?

Need2bfit918

The study DOES differentiate between red meat and processed meat. Would you like me to help you read it again? The morbidity rates for processed meats were given separately, and were much higher.

I would not suggest that you read the original study if a newspaper article about the study is giving you so much trouble.

What I mostly don't understand is how you constantly feel the need to talk to other people as if the are incapable of understanding simply because they happen to disagree with the viewpoints and evidence you are using to put across your 'arguments'.

I don't have journal access to read the study but since you like statistics so much you might like this:

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=5164

I always consider that I am probably more likely to get hit by a bus than make it to old age so I'll just carry on with my good quality wholefood diet thanks. Eat a veg*n diet if you please but it is a choice that you are able to make due to the society you live in, and it's not for me.

I might point out that the choice of your meat-inclusive diet is also due to the society you live in--thanks to corn, beef and dairy farm subsidies that artificially deflate the cost of those foods. Take a look at how luxurious your level of meat consumption is from a global perspective:

http://chartsbin.com/view/bhy

for the record the dairy industry doesn't receive much in the way of subsidies, and though I'm not sure about the beef industry i don't think its as much as people think. the most subsidized is the corn and overall grain industries. actually if not for the government meat and dairy could be cheaper. Government ethanol mandates have drove prices up.

That is a massive misstatement. First of all, the corn industry is the beef industry. We were just out in Iowa about a month ago. over 80% of Iowas massive corn harvest goes to feedlots. Water rights are huge out West, and they favor farmers and cattlemen. And this year, for example, there is a massive drought, so the government, which subsidizes about 80% of farm insurance will pay farmers for their lost crops. The bill will be in billions of dollars.

The government subsidy in meat and dairy is astronomical, and don't believe the crap put out by the industry itself.

i was actually raised in the industry. corn receives a lot of government help but its now mainly in the form of forced ethanol production, and that has not helped the beef and dairy industry in fact it has almost crippled it by driving the price of there main feed source higher than it ever should be. I'm not to sure about your 80% of corn is used for feed statement because i have read 40% goes to ethanol alone.

tidmutt

I have to agree, when I looked it up myself and asked about it on here I was shock that it doesn't allow grains stating people in the paleolithic period didn't eat grains and that isn't true at all. They ate whatever was accessible to them and at times it was grains. Of course it wasn't as processed as it is now (which the process of grains I'm sure helped humans get to where we are today, sorry as a species we are pretty successful since the process of grains helps us get more from them) but if it was available it was getting ate. It had alot to do to at what period in the paleolithic era and what region since we were advancing during this time. To try to mimic the true era you would need to go out and hunt and gather, if you're doing that and food doesn't come by easy, you won't snob grains.

There is some proof to support Paleolithic man eating some grains, but not to the extent we do and as you said, not as processed. Yes, grains and agriculture are responsible to some extent for our success, it's a cheap, readily available source of calories once you learn how to cultivate and process them. All of that means very little in terms of the question, are grains healthy, especially in the volume we tend to consume them. Corn and products derived from it is in a staggering amount of food products. Paleo type diets attempt to limit this consumption on the basis that prior to agriculture we probably ate much less of it.

Does the Paleo just limit or does it restrict?

Technically on Primal nothing is restricted. The guideline is to aim for 80/20. Mark Sission the guy behind Primal (who has a veggie wife btw) admits to enjoying a crusty bit of sourdough on the odd occasion or a bit of corn at a BBQ. Some completely eliminate grain, others incorporate a little, depending on how it makes them feel. Personally I enjoy the hell out of a good burger and I've used it as a weekly cheat meal while dieting. I'll have a little brown rice from time to time, sweet potato. That's all fine. It's about reducing the excesses of these foods which are so common in the Western diet.

Here is what Primal says about corn (no, I'm not saying this is proof, just illustrating the Primal position):

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/corn-is-not-a-vegetable

There are variations of ancestral diets, as I've said many times in these posts. Paleo by Cordain eliminates grain and dairy, Primal allows for dairy if you tolerate it. There are many other variations, there is even Paleo vegan.

freerange

The government subsidy in meat and dairy is astronomical, and don't believe the crap put out by the industry itself.

Those same subsidies work for the veggy farmer too.

Telugammayi87

bumppppppppp