Hunter-gatherers vs Westerners

psanoja

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.

She never said she was living with hunter gatherers, she said she's living with some farmers.

chivalryder

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.

so are your main problems with the diet the name , and the fact it includes meat? because even a lot of vegan diets want you to avoid wheat and sugar

VegesaurusRex

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.

**************
Really? That is interesting and I would really like to know how you know that. Also, I ask again what are you talking about? Austrolopiticenes? Homo Erectus? Anatomically Modern Humans? Homo Sapiens? What. Everything you are saying is vague, and depending on what you are talking about , very likely wrong.
**************

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.

***********************
Again technical subjects like nutrition require technical expertise. I am not willing to bet my life and health on some freelance writer for the New York Times who wants to sell books to gullible people.
************************

VegesaurusRex

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.

so are your main problems with the diet the name , and the fact it includes meat? because even a lot of vegan diets want you to avoid wheat and sugar

I think I was very clear on what my problems with the diet were.

VegesaurusRex

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.

Alright give me one.

lyttlewon

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.

The weapon probably also makes a difference. You don't have to actually chase a deer and stab it with a spear anymore.

freerange

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.

she said a spam filter removed it, and made sure it was re posted, I guess you just forgot to mention that part.

And why on earth would I want to drop myself off in the middle of nowhere and try to survive.

because it illustrates your "lifestyle' is flawed, how can anyone that has to rely on supplements and food sources trucked from around the world to survive claim their diet is optimal?

We have a civilzation where the problems you are worrrying about have been sovled thousands of years ago.

what problems would that be, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis?

Why would I not want to eat a diet that is right for THIS CIVILIZATION.

obviously you know nothing about how long it takes for the human body to adapt.

As I said previously, you are free to go out and eat bugs and worms, and slugs, and whatever you can catch

as I said before we don't do this.

(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!)

wrong assumption, really makes you look foolish when you make assumptions. Typical veggie.

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.

Alright give me one.

sorry, look it up yourself, I already did, and again I don't facilitate the lazy

VegesaurusRex

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.

Wow! You are basing your health on the diet of a tribe of 200 people living on an island in the Pacific. What a huge sample! What a fine isolated community (ever hear of genetic drift?) And by the way, their diet was 70% CARBS! 10% PROTEIN, 20% SATURATED FAT. Sounds healthy to me. Maybe I'll just go an eat a stick of butter, followed by about 10 candy bars. Yum! I'll have a handful of nuts for my protein.

Bytheway, you can also find studies about Lapplanders and Inuits who live on equally unhealthy diets. They have been cut off from other populations for a long time, and those who could not tolerate the diet, forced bythe environment, have long since died off. The Meat and Dairy industry loves to sponsor studies involving Lapplanders and Inuits, but I am sure these people have significant differences in genome from the wider population.

VegesaurusRex

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.

Alright give me one.

sorry, look it up yourself, I already did, and again I don't facilitate the lazy

Sure, right. And how many hours do I have to waste trying to prove a negative. Forget it. If you can't prove you know what you are talking about, I will simply form a logical opinion about what you believe.

freerange

Wow! You are basing your health on the diet of a tribe of 200 people living on an island in the Pacific. What a huge sample! What a fine isolated community (ever hear of genetic drift?) And by the way, their diet was 70% CARBS! 10% PROTEIN, 20% SATURATED FAT. Sounds healthy to me. Maybe I'll just go an eat a stick of butter, followed by about 10 candy bars. Yum! I'll have a handful of nuts for my protein.

do you know what strawman means?

freerange

Maybe I'll just go an eat a stick of butter, followed by about 10 candy bars. Yum! I'll have a handful of nuts for my protein.

What the heck are you babbling about now? LOL

freerange

but I am sure these people have significant differences in genome from the wider population.

You are sure? Well scientific man, where is you scientific study to back that up? LOL

freerange

Sure, right. And how many hours do I have to waste trying to prove a negative. Forget it. If you can't prove you know what you are talking about, I will simply form a logical opinion about what you believe.

you are free to do that. Again I already posted them you said you would ignore them, so why would I go thru the trouble of posting them again. Your mind is already made up, and it's based on your bias toward the unhealthy lifestyle you are living.

MamaKeeks

There is only one way to solve this... and that's with a Dance Off. Now, GO!

HHAAAA HAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

PURE AWESOME!!!

Need2bfit918

I dont understand opposition to a diet that encourages people to eat unprocessed food like meat, fruits and vegetables. To my understanding there is no limit on carbs unless your trying to lose weight, as long as they come from fruits,vegetables and tubers. I do not believe the pale or primal diets actually mandate any carbs, or fat ratio.

freerange

i dont understand opposition to a diet that encourages people to eat unprocessed food like meat, fruits and vegetables. To my understanding there is no limit on carbs unless your trying to lose weight, as long as they come from fruits,vegetables and tubers.

Because it includes meat, and most of those that come on here and deride it, are veggies. It's not hard to understand once you understand their agenda.

Need2bfit918

its odd that a diet encouraging meat, vegetables, fruits and tubers is considered a fad. but a diet that includes fake soy meat is not.

ErinBeth7

From the article:
"In fact, the Hadza spend a greater percentage of their daily energy budget on physical activity than Westerners do"

Huh? What exactly are the Westerners spending their energy on, then...? (if they are apparently expending the same energy)


Is this straight up energy consumption? Is this consumption per lb of body weight? Per lb of body fat? This summary of the actual research is fairly meaningless without more detail.

I agree. It didn't really explain the study very well.