Hunter-gatherers vs Westerners

Coco_UK

I tell you why paleo/primal is so big tight now. The same reason that Pepsi Max and Coke Zero are.... they are targeted to men.

They use languages and images that most heterosexual men feel comfortable with... so while your average men would rather eat **** than to say they are on the Dukan diet most guys are quite happy to say that they eat like a cave man.

PS: I know many women who like this way of eating and the same for gay men, but there is certainly something real macho about this whole plan which there was a gap in the market for before.

VegesaurusRex

First read the article at the link I posted.

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/slideshows/top-rated-diets-overall

"Experts" rated the Paleo diet the worst of the 25 diets compared.

Also, and perhaps more interesting, this same article shows that only a small percentage of people who followed the Paleo diet reported that it actually helped them. Compare that to the Vegan or Vegetarian diets.

Finally, as I pointed out in a previous post, you are following a diet which cannot be determined with any accuracy, associated with an extinct lifestyle which also cannot be determined, you fail to include worms grubs and insects in your diet, and the diet was a total failure in terms of longevity, or if you cannot except that Paleos died before forty, at least accept that because they died before 40 we have no knowledge of how their diet effects the diseases of old age.

I have yet to see even one good reason for seriously considering Paleo.

Really? Your "study" is nothing more than a opinion piece there is no "study" to it. And it's not surprising Paleo ranked low because as a modern trend it is fairly new.

It's funny how when you are making one point it's "not exact" but when you are making another point it's exact percentages of macros.

Paleo is just a catch word, like Warrior Race, Spartan Race, man I bet those send you to the nearest bridge contemplating a swan dive. It is based on whole foods, and loosely the types of foods that Paleo man would have had available (with a modern twist)

The theory behind the Paleo diet is that it mimics the diet the human race had "for miilions of years." I belive you were the one who said that. Now you are saying it is just a name with no particular reference to anything in our pre history. At least I believe that last bit is true, however, most paleos honestly believe that they are "eating like a caveman." Utter rubbish. It is a fad diet based upon false science with no nutritional, historical or anthropological evidence behind it. I guess tomorrow I will make up the Mickey Mouse diet, where you eat nothing but swiss cheese and beer for six months. Then I will make up a fable about how strong mice in Switzerland lived to be 100 years old on this diet. I will post it on this board, and I bet I will get a huge number of Paleos to switch over to my Mickey Mouse diet. After all, beer and Swiss cheese, what more could you want?

VegesaurusRex

Finally, as I pointed out in a previous post, you are following a diet which cannot be determined with any accuacy, associated with an extinct lifestyle which also cannot be determined, you fail to include worms grubs and insects in your diet, and the diet was a total failure in terms of longevity, or if you cannot except that Paleos died before forty, at least accept that because they died before 40 we have no knowledge of how their diet effects the diseases of old age.

I have yet to see even one good reason for seriously considering Paleo.

So because you found somewhere a statement that the average lifespan is 30-40 you take that to mean everyone that was born in that time survived as a infant, thru prepubescence, teenage years, young adult, and then just died at 35 years of age? WOW, when I learned averages in GRADE SCHOOL, it meant that some died younger and some died older. The astronomical high rate of infant mortality, not to mention the mortality rate of pre adulthood would seriously skew the average if pre-modern man.

Hopefully in grade school you learned what average meant. That is wonderful and a credit to our public schools for at least teaching that.. However, unless you have better information than anyone else, you cannot say what portion of the population during paleolithic times lived beyond 40. Yes, some certainly did. However without modern medicine, hygene, and protection from pathogens, wild animals and other dangers in the environment, I would doubt many did. If you have any information about some Paleolithic men living 100 years then please share it. As for me, I will take the "average lifespan of 35 years" to mean there weren't a whole lot of AARP candidates around then.

VegesaurusRex

Finally, you should try to be a little more precise. Are you talking about austrolopiticenes, homo erectus? Anatomically modern Humans? Homo Neandrathalasis? Homo sapiens? All had different diets depending upon where they lived. It is the imprecise nature of the "Paleo Diet" which makes it so absurd. Sorry, but I expect you are following a diet that only exists in Never never land.

Precisely the diet as laid out by Mark Session, Robb Wolf, Loren Cordain and others.

Are these the names of Austrolopithicenes?

When did they live and how do they know what our ancestors ate "for millions of years?"

VegesaurusRex

What is the "China Diet?" I have never heard of that.

The China Study, on the other had has yet to be seriously debunked. It has some problems, and Campbell the author of the study stated that given hindsight he might have done some things differently, but by no means did he ever state that his study had been "debunked." As far as I know, no one else with any scientific credentials has ever said that either.

Yes I meant China study, and really a person that did a study saying his study hasn't been debunked, now there's a shock.

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ (debunk)

http://www.foodrenegade.com/the-china-study-discredited/ (debunk)

http://freetheanimal.com/2010/07/t-colin-campbells-the-china-study-finally-exhaustively-discredited.html (debunk)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x5TKlTJLpE (and for those that can't read here is a you tube debunk)

Some of these overlap, please look at the links to actual studies, don't come back with these are just bloggers or whatever.

I went to your first site and found an article by Denise Minger, who may or may not even have a Bachelor's Degree but certainly has an agenda. Her criticisms might impress someone who know nothing about statistics, or who hadn't even read the book, which I assume you haven't, but they are not,. overall impressive. They did apparently cause a big stir, and T Colin Campbell himself responded to her, on a different web site:

http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html

Criticisms that were posted on Denise's website by actual scientists were seemingly removed by her. Read the article.

This is an article by a nobody (albeit a cute nobody) criticizing something she doesn't understand. Remember I said "reputable scientist?" Denise Minger, to the best of my knowledge is not a scientist let alone a "reputable scientist."

I suspect the other references you gave are equally pedestrian, so I am not going to waste my time.

freerange

The theory behind the Paleo diet is that it mimics the diet the human race had "for miilions of years." I belive you were the one who said that.

No I was not the one that said that. I would say it's "based" off what the human race did for millions of years, which by the way wasn't vegetarian or vegan, just thought I would throw that in there. Based off, as in, we use science and common sense to understand what the human evolved or was designed to eat, and try to use that as a basis for what we put in our bodies.

Now you are saying it is just a name with no particular reference to anything in our pre history.

No I'm saying the word Paleo is a broad meaning term, and does not mean we go around eating grubs and earth worms. As you rightly said man eat many thing based on region and season, to say paleo means you have to eat this or that, and in these amounts is foolish.

At least I believe that last bit is true, however, most paleos honestly believe that they are "eating like a caveman."

really? So you know "most" Paleos? Funny we've never met. I suppose it's the same with "most" veggies, they think they are eating like a bunny and saving the planet from mean'ol hunter gatherer types?

based on false science with no nutritional, historical or anthropological evidence behind it.

not true at all, just because you over look the science and historical evidence does not make it so.

freerange

Hopefully in grade school you learned what average meant. That is wonderful and a credit to our public schools for at least teaching that.. However, unless you have better information than anyone else, you cannot say what portion of the population during paleolithic times lived beyond 40. Yes, some certainly did. However without modern medicine, hygene, and protection from pathogens, wild animals and other dangers in the environment, I would doubt many did. If you have any information about some Paleolithic men living 100 years then please share it. As for me, I will take the "average lifespan of 35 years" to mean there weren't a whole lot of AARP candidates around then.

Let’s take a look at the Kitavans, since there’s so much data on them. A healthy, seemingly happy, peaceful culture in the Trobriand Islands in Papua New Guinea eating a Paleo diet. At the time they were studied in the late 1980′s, they ate tubers, fruit, fish, and occasionally pig, and they didn’t suffer from heart disease, obesity, or other common ailments of Westerners.

In fact, none of the 213 adults surveyed had any memory of anyone having chest pain or spontaneously dying (as from a heart attack). Oh, and they smoked like chimneys. Anyway, yes, their average lifespan was lower than ours, but it doesn’t mean that people didn’t live to be very old, even into their 100′s. Here’s the breakdown:

According to this study, their average lifespan was 45 years, which doesn’t seem that old, but it averaged out to that because a lot of children died of malaria. Once they reached adulthood, their chances of reaching old age were possibly about the same as Westerners. 6% of the population was 65 or older (compared to 12% in the U.S.). Their activity level was high, but not outrageously high. And none of the elderly seemed to suffer from dementia or poor memory. When the Kitavans were very old and it was their time to go, they would just stop working one day and go into their houses and die within days.

freerange

Are these the names of Austrolopithicenes?

When did they live and how do they know what our ancestors ate "for millions of years?"

If you don't know these names I suggest you look them up, and if you truely don't know them, then you are arguing from more ignorance then I first thought.

freerange

I suspect the other references you gave are equally pedestrian, so I am not going to waste my time.

LMAO

freerange

I went to your first site and found an article by Denise Minger, who may or may not even have a Bachelor's Degree but certainly has an agenda. Her criticisms might impress someone who know nothing about statistics, or who hadn't even read the book, which I assume you haven't, but they are not,. overall impressive. They did apparently cause a big stir, and T Colin Campbell himself responded to her, on a different web site:

http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html

LOL, is there a way to do a LOL even bigger, because this is so funny I'm actually LMAO right now, in fact hold on while I go pick my A up of the floor. "She has an agenda", really? you posted that while at the same time posting a link to discredit her, from VEGsource web site? LOLLOLOLOLOLOL I hope you do see the humor in that.

The reason I posted more than one "slap down of the China study, was so you would get a well rounded slapping down. Try the last one it's a short video, and the guy their talking to has a Dr. in front of his name since you put so much faith in people with letters in front or behind their name.


I do find it the epitome of humor for a veggie to be lecturing ANYONE about their diet, try this test, go drop yourself off in the middle of nowhere and try to survive as a veggie for a year, no supplements, no health food stores, just eat what you can gather.

freerange

from your link, and from Dr. Campbell

I am the first to admit that background and academic credentials are certainly not everything, and many interesting discoveries and contributions have been made by "outsiders" or newcomers in various fields.

LoraF83

I have a good theorized explanation for this:

Hunter-gatherers are on their feet EVERY DAY, getting exercise nearly the entire time they're awake. One thing exercise does is increase the efficiency of your body. The more efficient your body is, the fewer calories it will burn.

Makes sense, right?

So even though they're on their feet 12 hours a day, their bodies are so adapted to doing it, and they do it so much, their bodies don't have to work as hard to do more work. thus, their calorie usage is lower.

Also these people are probably a LOT lighter than the average desk worker, so their "normal" BMR will be a LOT lower.

Now, desk workers are NOT active, and a LOT heavier, so their BMR is higher.

Put two-and-two together, and you'll have equal calorie expenditure.

Now, if you got a desk worker to go out and work in their feet every single day, their calorie expenditure will be a LOT higher than the hunter-gatherers.

I'd like to add what I know bout this ultra-marathon runner I've watched a documentary on. His resting heart rate is 32 beats per minute. 32!!!! Mine is 50-60 some-odd, as is most of yours, I imagine. The slower your heart beats, the fewer calories you burn (it's a good guideline to follow - there are exceptions). In a race, he can run non-stop for 24 hours. In that time, he may burn as many calories as someone who is sitting at a desk all day. Does this mean you shouldn't bother going out to exercise, because the super athlete burns as many calories as you do while sitting at a desk? Heck no.

I feel this is the way people are thinking after reading the article. People need to think more about what they read... Srsly.

^Everything I was thinking. Thank you!! :drinker:

VegesaurusRex

from your link, and from Dr. Campbell

I am the first to admit that background and academic credentials are certainly not everything, and many interesting discoveries and contributions have been made by "outsiders" or newcomers in various fields.

He was being polite. She basically has no credentials. And besides we are talking about MY CRITERIA, not Campbell's. I said that I have never heard a REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS make the klnd of claims you did about the China Study.

I still haven't.

wackyfunster

I tell you why paleo/primal is so big tight now. The same reason that Pepsi Max and Coke Zero are.... they are targeted to men.

They use languages and images that most heterosexual men feel comfortable with... so while your average men would rather eat **** than to say they are on the Dukan diet most guys are quite happy to say that they eat like a cave man.

PS: I know many women who like this way of eating and the same for gay men, but there is certainly something real macho about this whole plan which there was a gap in the market for before.

OMFG, I had never even thought of that, but I think you are 100% right!

freerange

I still haven't.

Normally I ignore request by the lazy, but if you would actually look at the links I provided, and look at the internal links in those you would see them.

Yanicka1

I have a good theorized explanation for this:

Hunter-gatherers are on their feet EVERY DAY, getting exercise nearly the entire time they're awake. One thing exercise does is increase the efficiency of your body. The more efficient your body is, the fewer calories it will burn.

Makes sense, right?

So even though they're on their feet 12 hours a day, their bodies are so adapted to doing it, and they do it so much, their bodies don't have to work as hard to do more work. thus, their calorie usage is lower.

Also these people are probably a LOT lighter than the average desk worker, so their "normal" BMR will be a LOT lower.

Now, desk workers are NOT active, and a LOT heavier, so their BMR is higher.

Put two-and-two together, and you'll have equal calorie expenditure.

Now, if you got a desk worker to go out and work in their feet every single day, their calorie expenditure will be a LOT higher than the hunter-gatherers.

I'd like to add what I know bout this ultra-marathon runner I've watched a documentary on. His resting heart rate is 32 beats per minute. 32!!!! Mine is 50-60 some-odd, as is most of yours, I imagine. The slower your heart beats, the fewer calories you burn (it's a good guideline to follow - there are exceptions). In a race, he can run non-stop for 24 hours. In that time, he may burn as many calories as someone who is sitting at a desk all day. Does this mean you shouldn't bother going out to exercise, because the super athlete burns as many calories as you do while sitting at a desk? Heck no.

I feel this is the way people are thinking after reading the article. People need to think more about what they read... Srsly.

My thinking also

freerange

He was being polite.

Polite or lying? Because if you are saying no useful information ever comes from the "non-scientific",,,,,, well have a great boring life.

VegesaurusRex

I went to your first site and found an article by Denise Minger, who may or may not even have a Bachelor's Degree but certainly has an agenda. Her criticisms might impress someone who know nothing about statistics, or who hadn't even read the book, which I assume you haven't, but they are not,. overall impressive. They did apparently cause a big stir, and T Colin Campbell himself responded to her, on a different web site:

http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html

LOL, is there a way to do a LOL even bigger, because this is so funny I'm actually LMAO right now, in fact hold on while I go pick my A up of the floor. "She has an agenda", really? you posted that while at the same time posting a link to discredit her, from VEGsource web site? LOLLOLOLOLOLOL I hope you do see the humor in that.

The reason I posted more than one "slap down of the China study, was so you would get a well rounded slapping down. Try the last one it's a short video, and the guy their talking to has a Dr. in front of his name since you put so much faith in people with letters in front or behind their name.


I do find it the epitome of humor for a veggie to be lecturing ANYONE about their diet, try this test, go drop yourself off in the middle of nowhere and try to survive as a veggie for a year, no supplements, no health food stores, just eat what you can gather.

The Vegesource article contains a comment by T. Colin Campbell to Ms Minger. I think that is highly relevant, don't you? Especially since Ms Minger censored responses on her own blog that she didn't like or agree with.

And why on earth would I want to drop myself off in the middle of nowhere and try to survive. Hello, we are no longer living in the Ice Age. We have a civilzation where the problems you are worrrying about have been sovled thousands of years ago. Why would I not want to eat a diet that is right for THIS CIVILIZATION. As I said previously, you are free to go out and eat bugs and worms, and slugs, and whatever you can catch (Bytheway I assume that if you were planning to be dropped in the middle of nowhere you would bring a rifle with you. Now that is a really good paleolithic tool!)

You can prepare for living in an extinct society all you want. I choose to live in the one I have. You can ignore progress of the past several thousand years if you want, but I actually even doubt you would do that. As I said you would probably bring a rifle, penicilin, a first aid kit, and other tools to live the TRUE paleolithic lifestyle. Bet you wouldn't eat too many bugs or worms either.

Need2bfit918

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.

VegesaurusRex

He was being polite.

Polite or lying? Because if you are saying no useful information ever comes from the "non-scientific",,,,,, well have a great boring life.

Technical analsis requires technical knowledge. Sorry.