Hunter-gatherers vs Westerners
Options
Replies
-
I do think we, as a society, eat WAY too much. Way more then we need to.
I've read so many articles about portion sizes and what we actually need and it seems to me we were raised being given plates that would have fed three to four people!
Anyway, even if our increased weight is due only to increased food intake... I think increased physical activity is vital for good health.
Interesting article!
I agree. Food is fuel. Nothing else. Yes its wonderful and yes you should be allowed to enjoy that double cheeseburger when you want. But eating for comfort or boredness is a serious problem. You can see in other countries, NK/China, where food is not as abundant, the population is fairly skinny. NK is actually in a food crisis and has been for years and years. That is possibly a reason why the residents are extremely small. Adapted to their environment.
When I eat out with my family my kids usually share one dish now and when I can I share with my wife. I can't eat maybe 1/3rd plate at Texas Roadhouse or the like. I used to eat the whole thing. Probably why I weighed 255.5lbs.0 -
As a hunter, I can tell you that a lot of it is sitting and waiting for the animal. Sure, there is walking from stand to stand, or trailing a deer but for the most part it's a waiting game-at least for my dad and me it is.
You have never turkey hunted have you? Last time I went I think I clocked about 25 miles of walking per day looking for a good Tom.0 -
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?0 -
I'm not sure why you brought this up in the first place. The point was that the hunter-gatherers are not expending as much energy as one would expect, and you're like "but farming is hard!"I'm living in Tanzania right now, and what amazed me at first is how my neighbors stay fit given their diets. Lots of carbs, lots of fried foods... granted, many are farmers and do get a lot of exercise, but their portion sizes are huge!!! I'm always getting comments about how little I eat, and yet, I've gained weight on a Tanzanian diet, despite exercise. It's hard to account for the difference, unless we consider my previous eating habits (what my body is used to) and ancestry/genetics.
That's really interesting! So, maybe the hunter-gatherers were underreporting their food intake. Another sad study comes to mind though, and that's the one from earlier this year that said that people who lose weight burn fewer calories than people who are the same weight, but have always been that weight.
It doesn't sound like the people mfanyafujo is living around are hunter-gatherers.
Yes, I think the region matters less than the lifestyle does. Farming in Africa is likely to be different than hunting and gathering in Africa.
Actually, based on what I've seen, I think sometimes the farming lifestyle is harder than hunting and gathering. Even for simple sustenance farming, the required amount of land and crop output is pretty large. Now imagine that you have to plow up a several acres of a dry, hard, rocky field every year (by hand). For some of the crops, like the root crops, the harvesting process is even more difficult. What kills me is seeing five year olds walking several miles every morning at dawn with tools in hand, headed for the family farm.
Farming is difficult. Gathering - not so much. Hunting - depends on what they are after. The people I live around do a little of everything.0 -
My first reaction was that the hunters and gatherers have become more efficient at burning calories because I have to work so much harder now to burn the same amount of calories as I did when I first started losing weight.0
-
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.
0 -
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.0 -
I'm not sure why you brought this up in the first place. The point was that the hunter-gatherers are not expending as much energy as one would expect, and you're like "but farming is hard!"I'm living in Tanzania right now, and what amazed me at first is how my neighbors stay fit given their diets. Lots of carbs, lots of fried foods... granted, many are farmers and do get a lot of exercise, but their portion sizes are huge!!! I'm always getting comments about how little I eat, and yet, I've gained weight on a Tanzanian diet, despite exercise. It's hard to account for the difference, unless we consider my previous eating habits (what my body is used to) and ancestry/genetics.
That's really interesting! So, maybe the hunter-gatherers were underreporting their food intake. Another sad study comes to mind though, and that's the one from earlier this year that said that people who lose weight burn fewer calories than people who are the same weight, but have always been that weight.
It doesn't sound like the people mfanyafujo is living around are hunter-gatherers.
Yes, I think the region matters less than the lifestyle does. Farming in Africa is likely to be different than hunting and gathering in Africa.
Actually, based on what I've seen, I think sometimes the farming lifestyle is harder than hunting and gathering. Even for simple sustenance farming, the required amount of land and crop output is pretty large. Now imagine that you have to plow up a several acres of a dry, hard, rocky field every year (by hand). For some of the crops, like the root crops, the harvesting process is even more difficult. What kills me is seeing five year olds walking several miles every morning at dawn with tools in hand, headed for the family farm.
Farming is difficult. Gathering - not so much. Hunting - depends on what they are after. The people I live around do a little of everything.
Well, I suppose I was attempting to contribute to the discussion, starting with my experience in a quasi-hunter-gatherer community, and eventually that led to the differences between farming and hunting and gathering, but since YOU don't think it's valid to this discussion, I guess I'll ask everyone to kindly ignore my experiences in Africa. Thank you for your input which has enriched this thread.0 -
Yes, hunter-gatherers and farmers are different. However, my understanding of Hunter gatherers was that they did do some farming, along with scavenging for wild produce, and also that they did do some herding , bringing certain animals with them when they relocated. Also, true hunter-gatherers may not exist any more, or may be influenced by modern civilizations or cultures on the periphery of their territory.0
-
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?
I give no credence to the Paleo diet for a number of reasons:
1. Nobody knows what that diet really was. We have only a few spotty indications of what paleolithic man ate, and most Paleo references to sources for their diet that I have seen refer only to Ortzi, who was actually a NEOlithic human. Since he was frozen in a glacier, the contents of his stomach were also frozen. Most of the time at Paleolithc sites, antrhopologists have to examine what remains at the site to try to ascertain what the diet was.. These could be seeds, bones or even poop. Diet obviously varried from site to site, depending upon what was available. From what I know there was no "Paleolithic Diet" as such, just some meager information about what the diet may have been in a few places.
2. Even if one knew what the Paleolithic Diet was, it probably could not be reproduced exactly, since both the plants and the animals may have been genetically different from what they were today. And most likely a large part of the Paleolitic diet may have been scavenging kills from sabre tooth tigers, and other carnivores, or eating plants that are genetically different from what we eat today.
3. Since paleolithic man spent a large part of his waking life avoiding danger and trying to find food, I doubt you can compare his lifestyle with modern man. Lifestyle may have been a big part of the "success" of that diet.
4. Most evidence indicates that the Paleolithic diet was not a success. Paleolithic man lived to be 35 - 40, and so never lived long enough to demonstrate that he had any advantage regarding the diseases of old age (cancer and heart disease) over us, since he died before these diseases normally present.
5. The few studies I have seen on those attempting a Paleo diet indicate it is either neutral or harmful.
6. There are obviously better choices. No study I have ever read indicates that any chronic disease is associated with vegetarian diets, for example.
Thus my reasons for dismissing the Paleo diet are 1. no one knows what it really was, 2. even if we did we could not reproduce it, 3. it was the diet of a specific lifestyle which no longer exists, 4. there is no evidence that the paleolithic diet, which was a diet of necessity is any better than any other diet, 5. there is evidence that it is worse than other diets, and 6 there are a lot of studies which demonstrate fairly conclusively that diets with no meat are better for those who wish to live longer lives than diets with meat.0 -
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.
Hi, Mutt! Yeah, let's see what happens. I hope you give your point of view.0 -
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.
Yup. I agree with everything you said.0 -
I'm not sure why you brought this up in the first place. The point was that the hunter-gatherers are not expending as much energy as one would expect, and you're like "but farming is hard!"I'm living in Tanzania right now, and what amazed me at first is how my neighbors stay fit given their diets. Lots of carbs, lots of fried foods... granted, many are farmers and do get a lot of exercise, but their portion sizes are huge!!! I'm always getting comments about how little I eat, and yet, I've gained weight on a Tanzanian diet, despite exercise. It's hard to account for the difference, unless we consider my previous eating habits (what my body is used to) and ancestry/genetics.
That's really interesting! So, maybe the hunter-gatherers were underreporting their food intake. Another sad study comes to mind though, and that's the one from earlier this year that said that people who lose weight burn fewer calories than people who are the same weight, but have always been that weight.
It doesn't sound like the people mfanyafujo is living around are hunter-gatherers.
Yes, I think the region matters less than the lifestyle does. Farming in Africa is likely to be different than hunting and gathering in Africa.
Actually, based on what I've seen, I think sometimes the farming lifestyle is harder than hunting and gathering. Even for simple sustenance farming, the required amount of land and crop output is pretty large. Now imagine that you have to plow up a several acres of a dry, hard, rocky field every year (by hand). For some of the crops, like the root crops, the harvesting process is even more difficult. What kills me is seeing five year olds walking several miles every morning at dawn with tools in hand, headed for the family farm.
Farming is difficult. Gathering - not so much. Hunting - depends on what they are after. The people I live around do a little of everything.
Well, I suppose I was attempting to contribute to the discussion, starting with my experience in a quasi-hunter-gatherer community, and eventually that led to the differences between farming and hunting and gathering, but since YOU don't think it's valid to this discussion, I guess I'll ask everyone to kindly ignore my experiences in Africa. Thank you for your input which has enriched this thread.
I think it is quite valid. You are probably the only one on this board who can approach this subject with first hand knowledge.
Was this a true Hunter-Gatherer Society or did the population have access to modern medicine?0 -
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.
Okay, you raise the typical arguments against ancestral diets but are a liitle misinformed. First not all "Paleo" diets exclude dairy some do on the basis that we couldn't possibly have consumed dairy for the majority of our evolution. This doesn't prove dairy is bad for you but proponents of ancestral diets tend to view this as a starting point, in other words, we should reexamine the current dietary recommendations for large amounts of dairy because if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective it seems very odd indeed. Saying that plenty of people follow Paleo style diets and still eat dairy. Check out the primal diet.
As for all cavemen died at 30, we don't really know that, it's a guess based on a vey small sample, which actually IS one of the problems with Paleo diets in that it's difficult to determine empirically the micro and macro content of our diet 20k years ago. However, age of death was likely caused by infection, predators, infant mortality etc. There is nothing to say that if you avoided those that you wouldn't have lived to 60-70 years.
Although there is some evidence that some cultures ate grain prior to modern agriculture it was impossible for them to consume in the quantities we do because grain requires so much processing so to eat large volumes requires mechanization.
I've personally never believed that Paleo man was completely disease free.
Your points on meat consumption; many people mistakenly believe Paleo diets are carnivorous diets, they are not. In fact they place an emphasis on large amounts of vegetables. If someone is doing Paleo and it looks like the first two weeks of Atkins then they are NOT doing Paleo. Secondly, on Paleo diets the meat consumed should be grass fed or wild game meat. This probably doesn't completely match the nutritional profile of the game Paleo man would have eaten but it's closer than your typical factory farmed stuff. Your point about grass fed beef farming being unable to feed the world is somewhat valid but honestly I'm not trying to save the world, just me. I do think if we worked on the problem we could find a way to raise livestock in a healthier way that is sustainable. That's a whole other debate.
Your classification of Paleo diet as a fad diet is arbitrary and meaningless. Most diets are fad diets initially, Paleo diets don't quite fit current dietary recommendations from government institutions etc. especially those that encourage saturated fat consumption that doesn't make them wrong, but people will often classify them as fads because of that. Time will likely tell.
My personal belief is that we have different nutritional needs based on our genetics, environment, upbringing and so on, so a little experimentation is called for. This is why I like primal, it encourages n=1, if you lose weight or feel healthy (your test show good health etc.) when eating dairy then by all means do it. It's a realistic, sustainable approach to eating, nothing faddish about it at all.0 -
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?
I give no credence to the Paleo diet for a number of reasons:
1. Nobody knows what that diet really was. We have only a few spotty indications of what paleolithic man ate, and most Paleo references to sources for their diet that I have seen refer only to Ortzi, who was actually a NEOlithic human. Since he was frozen in a glacier, the contents of his stomach were also frozen. Most of the time at Paleolithc sites, antrhopologists have to examine what remains at the site to try to ascertain what the diet was.. These could be seeds, bones or even poop. Diet obviously varried from site to site, depending upon what was available. From what I know there was no "Paleolithic Diet" as such, just some meager information about what the diet may have been in a few places.
2. Even if one knew what the Paleolithic Diet was, it probably could not be reproduced exactly, since both the plants and the animals may have been genetically different from what they were today. And most likely a large part of the Paleolitic diet may have been scavenging kills from sabre tooth tigers, and other carnivores, or eating plants that are genetically different from what we eat today.
3. Since paleolithic man spent a large part of his waking life avoiding danger and trying to find food, I doubt you can compare his lifestyle with modern man. Lifestyle may have been a big part of the "success" of that diet.
4. Most evidence indicates that the Paleolithic diet was not a success. Paleolithic man lived to be 35 - 40, and so never lived long enough to demonstrate that he had any advantage regarding the diseases of old age (cancer and heart disease) over us, since he died before these diseases normally present.
5. The few studies I have seen on those attempting a Paleo diet indicate it is either neutral or harmful.
6. There are obviously better choices. No study I have ever read indicates that any chronic disease is associated with vegetarian diets, for example.
Thus my reasons for dismissing the Paleo diet are 1. no one knows what it really was, 2. even if we did we could not reproduce it, 3. it was the diet of a specific lifestyle which no longer exists, 4. there is no evidence that the paleolithic diet, which was a diet of necessity is any better than any other diet, 5. there is evidence that it is worse than other diets, and 6 there are a lot of studies which demonstrate fairly conclusively that diets with no meat are better for those who wish to live longer lives than diets with meat.
Okay, veggiusmaximus, agreed that it's difficult to determine the components of the Paleo diet, although I think it's obvious it was highly varied based on local flora and fauna. I think it's safe to say that it didn't contain twinkles, wonder bread and processed corn products in just about everything. That is the major point behind ancestral diets. Ortzi is not the major piece of supporting evidence, read any of Cordain's work to see lots of other stuff.
You paint a depressing picture of man as a hunter. Lol
You mention studies, time to cough up the links!
As I've pointed out to you before, you technically support the macro nutrient profile of the Paleo diet more than most other diets since it's closest to vegan, the only difference is the meat. So we're back to the meat vs veggie debate when you boil it down.0 -
The issue highlighted in the study is that they are thinner and lighter than you, so they burn less calories on account of that - even accounting for greater activity levels.My first reaction was that the hunters and gatherers have become more efficient at burning calories because I have to work so much harder now to burn the same amount of calories as I did when I first started losing weight.
Doubly labelled water and respiratory gas analysis was used to determine energy consumption and expenditure, they also had GPS devices fitted and were measured for energy walking on a test track. It's all in the paper.
The "paleo diet" is mentioned by Dr John Briffa's blog http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/07/27/hunter-gatherers-most-likely-to-be-leaner-than-us-due-to-differences-in-diet-not-activity/ where he points to papers that find the "Paleo diet" to be more satiating resulting in lower ad lib energy intake of ~1400 vs 1800 cals/day compared to a "Mediterranean" style diet.
"Paleo diet" - http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7628r66r0552222/fulltext.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009971 includes macro & micro nutrient profiles.
I use "Paleo diet" in quotes to indicate what is currently eaten by those following such a diet, without any reference to ancient history ;-) There's a lot less carbs in the Paleo vs Mediterranean diet comparison.0 -
The main message of the study is that even though the hunter-gathers were more active than their western counter-parts, they did not burn any more energy.
Indeed, mainly because their average BMI is 20 and the men weigh 115 lbs and the women 95 lbs.
So their TDEE / RMR ratio is much higher, but TDEE still lower by about 400 calories/day.0 -
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?
I give no credence to the Paleo diet for a number of reasons:
1. Nobody knows what that diet really was. We have only a few spotty indications of what paleolithic man ate, and most Paleo references to sources for their diet that I have seen refer only to Ortzi, who was actually a NEOlithic human. Since he was frozen in a glacier, the contents of his stomach were also frozen. Most of the time at Paleolithc sites, antrhopologists have to examine what remains at the site to try to ascertain what the diet was.. These could be seeds, bones or even poop. Diet obviously varried from site to site, depending upon what was available. From what I know there was no "Paleolithic Diet" as such, just some meager information about what the diet may have been in a few places.
2. Even if one knew what the Paleolithic Diet was, it probably could not be reproduced exactly, since both the plants and the animals may have been genetically different from what they were today. And most likely a large part of the Paleolitic diet may have been scavenging kills from sabre tooth tigers, and other carnivores, or eating plants that are genetically different from what we eat today.
3. Since paleolithic man spent a large part of his waking life avoiding danger and trying to find food, I doubt you can compare his lifestyle with modern man. Lifestyle may have been a big part of the "success" of that diet.
4. Most evidence indicates that the Paleolithic diet was not a success. Paleolithic man lived to be 35 - 40, and so never lived long enough to demonstrate that he had any advantage regarding the diseases of old age (cancer and heart disease) over us, since he died before these diseases normally present.
5. The few studies I have seen on those attempting a Paleo diet indicate it is either neutral or harmful.
6. There are obviously better choices. No study I have ever read indicates that any chronic disease is associated with vegetarian diets, for example.
Thus my reasons for dismissing the Paleo diet are 1. no one knows what it really was, 2. even if we did we could not reproduce it, 3. it was the diet of a specific lifestyle which no longer exists, 4. there is no evidence that the paleolithic diet, which was a diet of necessity is any better than any other diet, 5. there is evidence that it is worse than other diets, and 6 there are a lot of studies which demonstrate fairly conclusively that diets with no meat are better for those who wish to live longer lives than diets with meat.
Okay, veggiusmaximus, agreed that it's difficult to determine the components of the Paleo diet, although I think it's obvious it was highly varied based on local flora and fauna. I think it's safe to say that it didn't contain twinkles, wonder bread and processed corn products in just about everything. That is the major point behind ancestral diets. Ortzi is not the major piece of supporting evidence, read any of Cordain's work to see lots of other stuff.
**********
True no twinkies, but it did probably contain insects, slugs, worms and whatever was slow enough for a human to catch, and that certainly leaves out cows and bulls, pigs, goats and most of the sources of meat today.
And like I said why emulate a diet that you cannot determine, cannot copy, makes no sense to copy since it belonged to an extinct lifestyle, that has never been shown to be beneficial, and has been shown to be inferior to vegetarian diets? Makes no sense to me.
*************
You paint a depressing picture of man as a hunter. Lol
You mention studies, time to cough up the links!
As I've pointed out to you before, you technically support the macro nutrient profile of the Paleo diet more than most other diets since it's closest to vegan, the only difference is the meat. So we're back to the meat vs veggie debate when you boil it down.
***************
Yeah, you got it. Why eat meat when you don't havet to and it is bad for you?
****************0 -
The issue highlighted in the study is that they are thinner and lighter than you, so they burn less calories on account of that - even accounting for greater activity levels.My first reaction was that the hunters and gatherers have become more efficient at burning calories because I have to work so much harder now to burn the same amount of calories as I did when I first started losing weight.
Doubly labelled water and respiratory gas analysis was used to determine energy consumption and expenditure, they also had GPS devices fitted and were measured for energy walking on a test track. It's all in the paper.
The "paleo diet" is mentioned by Dr John Briffa's blog http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/07/27/hunter-gatherers-most-likely-to-be-leaner-than-us-due-to-differences-in-diet-not-activity/ where he points to papers that find the "Paleo diet" to be more satiating resulting in lower ad lib energy intake of ~1400 vs 1800 cals/day compared to a "Mediterranean" style diet.
"Paleo diet" - http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7628r66r0552222/fulltext.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009971 includes macro & micro nutrient profiles.
I use "Paleo diet" in quotes to indicate what is currently eaten by those following such a diet, without any reference to ancient history ;-) There's a lot less carbs in the Paleo vs Mediterranean diet comparison.
Why do you defend a diet that has never been shown to have anything going for it?0 -
The main message of the study is that even though the hunter-gathers were more active than their western counter-parts, they did not burn any more energy.
Indeed, mainly because their average BMI is 20 and the men weigh 115 lbs and the women 95 lbs.
So their TDEE / RMR ratio is much higher, but TDEE still lower by about 400 calories/day.
Link to text quoted below:
http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/26/modern-lazy-people-burn-as-many-calories-as-hunter-gatherers-so-what-makes-us-fat/
"In fact, even though total energy expenditure did vary considerably by age, gender and by body size, as anticipated, when the researchers looked at men of the same age who each weighed, say, 130 lbs., there was no discernible difference by lifestyle group in total daily energy expenditure. On average, the Hadza were much smaller than the Westerners, both in height and in weight (130 lbs. was at the high end for Hadza males). But statistical analysis suggests that the basic relationship between energy spent and lean body mass — not including the Westerners’ extra fat pounds — was essentially the same across societies, and across people big and small.
Those results are all the more surprising because the Hadza did appear to expend much more energy in physical activity, as they hunted and foraged. But activity differences did not translate into differences in total energy use. What’s more, even among members of the same society, Hadza people who walked a long way each day did not have measurably higher total expenditure than individuals who did not walk so much. It seems that people’s metabolisms may compensate somewhat for activity level.
The new findings seem to contradict popular beliefs that weight management is simply a matter of balancing what we eat with enough purposeful physical activity.
“The similarity in [total energy expenditure (TEE)] among Hadza hunter-gatherers and Westerners suggests that even dramatic differences in lifestyle may have a negligible effect on TEE,” the authors conclude in their study, which is published this week in the journal PLoS One."0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions