What is the REAL paleo diet?

_VoV
_VoV Posts: 1,494 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Paleo is hot right now. How to eat like a caveman is the subject of many books on various best seller lists. But, what *IS* the paleo diet, and why is the diet from this particular time in human history more important than any other?

This, and more, is the subject of this excellent article from Scientific American:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/07/23/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/
«13456

Replies

  • VelociMama
    VelociMama Posts: 3,119 Member
    Really great article! Thanks for sharing VOV! :smile:
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    I read the article and it is very close to my understanding of what early man (hominid to neolithic) ate. As I have posted on this board many times, and have met all kinds of silly arguments from the paleos, early man's most likely diet was fruits, nuts, vegetables, leaves, grass, insects, and VERY OCCASIONALLY meat. For some reason the Paleos believe that meat was the primary food, and ask the article points out THERE IS NO BASIS for that belief. Also, as the article points out, if you do want to eat like a caveman and you insist on eating meat, insects are your meat of choice. Early man ate what early man could catch, and that wasn't much.
  • taylor5877
    taylor5877 Posts: 1,792 Member
    ok, so technically the REAL paleo diet is just assimilating molecules to make cells in an energy charged soup of biomolecules from the sea where neither plant nor animal exist...if you follow out the "natural" progression that article implies.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    ok, so technically the REAL paleo diet is just assimilating molecules to make cells in an energy charged soup of biomolecules from the sea where neither plant nor animal exist...if you follow out the "natural" progression that article implies.

    Yes, that was the point of the article. How far back do you go. When do you stop, Why. Do you consider Australopithicenes? Paleolithic? Neolithic? Early Modern Humans? What? and Why.

    However, I think even the Paleos would admit that going back two billion years doesn't prove anything.
  • _VoV
    _VoV Posts: 1,494 Member
    ok, so technically the REAL paleo diet is just assimilating molecules to make cells in an energy charged soup of biomolecules from the sea where neither plant nor animal exist...if you follow out the "natural" progression that article implies.

    Yes, that was the point of the article. How far back do you go. When do you stop, Why. Do you consider Australopithicenes? Paleolithic? Neolithic? Early Modern Humans? What? and Why.

    However, I think even the Paleos would admit that going back two billion years doesn't prove anything.

    Unless of course primordial soup tastes like miso soup. *LOVE*
  • Bentley2718
    Bentley2718 Posts: 1,689 Member
    Maybe our roach-infested apartment isn't such a bad deal after all...Cheap housing and high quality protein...I kid...

    Interesting article. I enjoy reading things by authors who understand nuance.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Maybe our roach-infested apartment isn't such a bad deal after all...Cheap housing and high quality protein...I kid...

    Interesting article. I enjoy reading things by authors who understand nuance.

    LOL!!!!!!
  • VelociMama
    VelociMama Posts: 3,119 Member
    ok, so technically the REAL paleo diet is just assimilating molecules to make cells in an energy charged soup of biomolecules from the sea where neither plant nor animal exist...if you follow out the "natural" progression that article implies.

    Yes, that was the point of the article. How far back do you go. When do you stop, Why. Do you consider Australopithicenes? Paleolithic? Neolithic? Early Modern Humans? What? and Why.

    However, I think even the Paleos would admit that going back two billion years doesn't prove anything.

    It also depends on WHERE and what specific subpopulation you're looking at. Modern humans in Northern Canada had a very different diet than those living in Sub-saharan Africa, for example. Those living out on the great plains had a very different diet than those living along the coast even just in North America.

    Honestly, there really is no "true" paleo diet. It was never one-size-fits-all for humans. Our ancestors ate whatever the hell they could eat to keep them and their children alive, and those choices were often dictated by where they lived and what was available to them.
  • taylor5877
    taylor5877 Posts: 1,792 Member
    Not defending Paleo because lord knows I don't do it, but why do we have to have to overanalyze and eloquently "trash" a diet that can be a healthy diet and one that has helped a lot of people because it doesn't fit into our "box"...
  • VelociMama
    VelociMama Posts: 3,119 Member
    Not defending Paleo because lord knows I don't do it, but why do we have to have to overanalyze and eloquently "trash" a diet that can be a healthy diet and one that has helped a lot of people because it doesn't fit into our "box"...

    I don't see anyone trashing the diet here, just sharing information about it and helping enlightening people a bit.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    ok, so technically the REAL paleo diet is just assimilating molecules to make cells in an energy charged soup of biomolecules from the sea where neither plant nor animal exist...if you follow out the "natural" progression that article implies.

    Yes, that was the point of the article. How far back do you go. When do you stop, Why. Do you consider Australopithicenes? Paleolithic? Neolithic? Early Modern Humans? What? and Why.

    However, I think even the Paleos would admit that going back two billion years doesn't prove anything.

    It also depends on WHERE and what specific subpopulation you're looking at. Modern humans in Northern Canada had a very different diet than those living in Sub-saharan Africa, for example. Those living out on the great plains had a very different diet than those living along the coast even just in North America.

    Honestly, there really is no "true" paleo diet. It was never one-size-fits-all for humans. Our ancestors ate whatever the hell they could eat to keep them and their children alive.

    Of course. The article pointed out that the Russian Colon was much longer than the Turkish Colon. Probably the Russians ate fewer insects than the Turks, or perhaps the Turks all lived near water and ate fish. In any event, the author, after being equivocal about what the real Paleo diet was, gave us a hint as to what he really thinks by saying he like fruits, nuts, vegetables, Chocolate and wine (ironically exactly my diet .) He's not big on insects.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Not defending Paleo because lord knows I don't do it, but why do we have to have to overanalyze and eloquently "trash" a diet that can be a healthy diet and one that has helped a lot of people because it doesn't fit into our "box"...

    Have you read the article? You might want to. There is no trashing of the diet, but there is an honest attempt to try to undersand what the Paleo Diet really was. (Hint: it is not what the Paleos believe it is.)
  • lisamarie2181
    lisamarie2181 Posts: 560 Member
    Not defending Paleo because lord knows I don't do it, but why do we have to have to overanalyze and eloquently "trash" a diet that can be a healthy diet and one that has helped a lot of people because it doesn't fit into our "box"...

    Agreed! Some people find that restricting certain things really helps them, some find all in moderation is good for them. No way is the wrong way, they all have a calorie deficit in common, its just how you choose the best way for you.

    Well said sir :)
  • divemunkey
    divemunkey Posts: 288 Member
    Not defending Paleo because lord knows I don't do it, but why do we have to have to overanalyze and eloquently "trash" a diet that can be a healthy diet and one that has helped a lot of people because it doesn't fit into our "box"...

    Because we like to be trollish jerks, like to hate on people who eat meat, are scared of those who do things differently from us...
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Not defending Paleo because lord knows I don't do it, but why do we have to have to overanalyze and eloquently "trash" a diet that can be a healthy diet and one that has helped a lot of people because it doesn't fit into our "box"...

    Because we like to be trollish jerks, like to hate on people who eat meat, are scared of those who do things differently from us...

    Speak for yourself.
  • taylor5877
    taylor5877 Posts: 1,792 Member
    Not defending Paleo because lord knows I don't do it, but why do we have to have to overanalyze and eloquently "trash" a diet that can be a healthy diet and one that has helped a lot of people because it doesn't fit into our "box"...

    Because we like to be trollish jerks, like to hate on people who eat meat, are scared of those who do things differently from us...

    Atkins, south beach, paleo, piscitarian, vegan, all get hated on here...

    You can do any of those with a purpose and them be a beneficial diet. There is not one way to do something right.
  • VelociMama
    VelociMama Posts: 3,119 Member
    ... and just like that, this very interesting and thoughtful conversation devolved into people whining about paleo-bashing instead of actually READING THE ARTICLE FIRST and contributing to the conversation...

    Way to go MFP... again.
  • Spartan_Maker
    Spartan_Maker Posts: 683 Member
    A few generations ago, the "Paleo Diet," more or less, was just called "eating."
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    ok, so technically the REAL paleo diet is just assimilating molecules to make cells in an energy charged soup of biomolecules from the sea where neither plant nor animal exist...if you follow out the "natural" progression that article implies.

    I have several friends of mine on the paleo diet. My only issue with the diet is the lack of peanut butter. (oh, and sugar)
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Not defending Paleo because lord knows I don't do it, but why do we have to have to overanalyze and eloquently "trash" a diet that can be a healthy diet and one that has helped a lot of people because it doesn't fit into our "box"...

    Because we like to be trollish jerks, like to hate on people who eat meat, are scared of those who do things differently from us...

    Atkins, south beach, paleo, piscitarian, vegan, all get hated on here...

    You can do any of those with a purpose and them be a beneficial diet. There is not one way to do something right.

    Hello! This is not a thread about what diets can be beneficial (although I completely disagree with your statement) This is an tread about what the Paleo Diet is/should be/ must be/ actually was.
  • _VoV
    _VoV Posts: 1,494 Member
    Not defending Paleo because lord knows I don't do it, but why do we have to have to overanalyze and eloquently "trash" a diet that can be a healthy diet and one that has helped a lot of people because it doesn't fit into our "box"...

    Read the article before dismissing it.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    A few generations ago, the "Paleo Diet" was just called "eating."

    Really? You consume a lot of insects?

    It seems we are overrun with people who are too lazy to read the article.
  • Spartan_Maker
    Spartan_Maker Posts: 683 Member
    A few generations ago, the "Paleo Diet" was just called "eating."

    Really? You consume a lot of insects?

    It seems we are overrun with people who are too lazy to read the article.

    Reading an article typically requires a link that works. More important, however, when you're sufficiently educated, you don't need to be spoonfed your science by popular magazines like "Scientific American."
  • AbbsyBabbsy
    AbbsyBabbsy Posts: 184 Member
    A few generations ago, the "Paleo Diet" was just called "eating."

    How many generations ago? Because bread and grains and legumes and dairy have been around for thousands of years.

    I must suck at "eating" because the Paleo diet was a disaster for me. In 4 months, I gained 2 lbs and was sick all the time. When I increased my starches and reduced my fat intake the weight started melting off.

    It's a perfectly valid diet, if it works for you. But it's not the one true path to health and it's not the one, single ancestral diet.
  • divemunkey
    divemunkey Posts: 288 Member
    Hello! This is not a thread about what diets can be beneficial (although I completely disagree with your statement) This is an tread about what the Paleo Diet is/should be/ must be/ actually was.
    [/quote]

    Any time a Veggie/vegan goes off about Paleo diets it always ends up a we are better than them kind of thing. People who identify as eating a Paleo/Primal diet do not ever generally think they are truly eating as our ancestors did, but contend that what is being recommended as healthy food right now isn't, and that taking a step back is much better for overall health. That is all. Yes, there are dirt eaters out there, but they are on the fringes, just as there are nutters on the edge of any philosophy.

    And no, I'm not too lazy to read the article, I just don't care to presently. If it's anything new and exciting, I'll come across it from a reputable individual from my community. I'd rather use my time searching out that article that discusses how many animals are killed during the average harvest of all those grain crops everyone seems so fond of. But I wouldn't post it here with an inflammatory topic name and see if anybody took the bait and then pretend I didn't mean anything but a healthy discussion.
  • VelociMama
    VelociMama Posts: 3,119 Member
    A few generations ago, the "Paleo Diet" was just called "eating."

    Really? You consume a lot of insects?

    It seems we are overrun with people who are too lazy to read the article.

    Reading an article typically requires a link that works. More important, however, when you're sufficiently educated, you don't need to be spoonfed your science by popular magazines like "Scientific American."

    The link works just fine.
  • _VoV
    _VoV Posts: 1,494 Member
    Not defending Paleo because lord knows I don't do it, but why do we have to have to overanalyze and eloquently "trash" a diet that can be a healthy diet and one that has helped a lot of people because it doesn't fit into our "box"...

    Because we like to be trollish jerks, like to hate on people who eat meat, are scared of those who do things differently from us...

    Just to be clear, this is NOT the sort of discussion I had in mind. You may feel you know me and my intentions, but you do not.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    A few generations ago, the "Paleo Diet" was just called "eating."

    Really? You consume a lot of insects?

    It seems we are overrun with people who are too lazy to read the article.

    Reading an article typically requires a link that works. More important, however, when you're sufficiently educated, you don't need to be spoonfed your science by popular magazines like "Scientific American."

    I just tried the link. It works. Here it is again:

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/07/23/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/

    Also, I read other journals such as PNAS, PLoS ONE, Science, and Nature, among many many others. SA's articles are written by the top people in their field, and would generally be classified as "Review of the Literature" by some of the other journals.
  • _VoV
    _VoV Posts: 1,494 Member
    Hello! This is not a thread about what diets can be beneficial (although I completely disagree with your statement) This is an tread about what the Paleo Diet is/should be/ must be/ actually was.

    Any time a Veggie/vegan goes off about Paleo diets it always ends up a we are better than them kind of thing. People who identify as eating a Paleo/Primal diet do not ever generally think they are truly eating as our ancestors did, but contend that what is being recommended as healthy food right now isn't, and that taking a step back is much better for overall health. That is all. Yes, there are dirt eaters out there, but they are on the fringes, just as there are nutters on the edge of any philosophy.

    And no, I'm not too lazy to read the article, I just don't care to presently. If it's anything new and exciting, I'll come across it from a reputable individual from my community. I'd rather use my time searching out that article that discusses how many animals are killed during the average harvest of all those grain crops everyone seems so fond of. But I wouldn't post it here with an inflammatory topic name and see if anybody took the bait and then pretend I didn't mean anything but a healthy discussion.
    [/quote]

    ************************************************************************************************************************************************

    Well, if you don't want to read the article, I see no point in coming onto this thread to defame people. I wanted to spark a discussion of this article.

    Edit: Failed attempt to get this is quote correctly.
  • vim_n_vigor
    vim_n_vigor Posts: 4,089 Member
    I read the article. There wasn't any bashing of Paleo or any other diets in there that I saw. I am not vegan, vegetarian, Paleo, low carb, etc. I just eat food. The article does make some really good points that I do see missing in the discussion very frequently.

    Why would wine not be part of a Paleo diet? In regions and climates where grapes are prevalent, people would eat grapes. People would pick what they would carry. Grapes begin fermenting and turn into wine quite quickly. In some parts of the world I'm sure some groups of people were able to eat meat more frequently than others. In some areas, it would be very difficult and not very practical to catch an animal source of protein on a regular basis. People would eat what was available in their environment and it would change seasonally. That to me is just common sense. There is no one set this is what they ate, because where they lived really dictated what they ate.

Categories