What is the REAL paleo diet?
Options
Replies
-
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.
I read the article better than you did, it seems. He hopped from stone age humans to our relatives, such as chimpanzees, and then started up with the insects. Our stone age ancestors in colder climates did eat a lot of meat and not much else because there wasn't much else to eat.
Although if it really makes people happier, we low carb people can always say we're following a modified Inuit diet, which is where modern very low carb diets have a lot of their basis.
Have you ever looked up the lifespan of the Inuits? You might want to do so. Before exposure to white man's food, their lifespan was about 47 years. Now it is between 64 and 67 years.
What the article said was the only thing we know for CERTAIN was that from Hominids to Anatomically Modern Humans, the most common food was fruits, nuts, vegetables, and insects. Meat was extremely rare, and although there were some peoples who ate a lot of meat (such as the Inuits) there was no indication these people thrived any better then than they do today.
I am drawing an inference, too, from having read the article. The author mentions certain populations developed physiological, biochemical and/or genetic adaptations during and/or after the agricultural revolution which enabled that group to eat dairy and grain with greater ease than other populations. Perhaps those of Inuit ancestry might have evolved adaptations that make them better equipped to eat a heavy meat-centered diet, but that is still a rather small population when you consider things in global perspective.0 -
The article supports what most true Paleo dieters say: eat whole fruits and veggies and supplement with meat. The reason the article seems to be anti-paleo is because it starts on a false premise: the paleo diet concentrates on meat with a supplement of fruits and veggies.
***********************
No, that is not what the article says. It says that Paleo man ate leaves, fruits, nuts, vegetables and insects, primarily with the occasional mouse or humming bird.
And Paleo is focused on meat. I went to a Paleo website by and for Paleos and the only food they had photos of from a Paleo convention was raw meat,
You really want to do more with insects.
*************************************
The article clearly does not say that early man was a vegetarian.
***********************************
Again wrong. Read it again. It said that early hominids were entirely vegetarian, except again possibly for insects. As you go to Homo erectus, this changed, but before Homo erectus, it was likely all or mostly veggies.
***********************************
In fact, the article points out that man's digestive tract isn't the same as a herbivore's digestive tract. It also states that early man's diet focused on fruits and veggies and was supplemented with meat.
**********************************
It says correctly that man's digestive tract is more flexible than a cows, but it very clearly points out that the best evidence is that man's early diet was PRIMARILY vegetarian, and that was more true the further back you go.
**********************************
The one thing I like about this article is that it says that everyone should choose the diet that works best for him/her. This is true.
**********************************
Again I think you are totally misunderstanding what he is saying. He said BASED ON YOUR ANCESTRY, choose the diet that is best for you. If you happent to be an Inuit or a Lapp, that may be a highly meat centered diet, but if you're almost anyone else it is almost certainly vegetarian.
**********************************0 -
My response is going to be biased. But the OP is clearly a vegetarian, nearly a vegan, and posting that article in itself was kind of biased. It's an article pretty much pointing out how Paleos have it wrong, and vegetarians have it right. Yes, I did read it.
The main point of a Paleo diet is not MEAT MEAT MEAT. I eat more vegetables than my vegetarian friends. At least the way I take it, it's just about eating real, whole food and knowing exactly what you're eating.
No "packaged" foods. No cheese/milk/butter/whatever substitute (look at the ingredients in Daiya vegan cheese... gross). Just real food.
Are you sure you read the article? I didn't come to that conclusion at all. Actually, it seemed more like what you say you do, except that you don't mention insects in your diet.0 -
The article supports what most true Paleo dieters say: eat whole fruits and veggies and supplement with meat. The reason the article seems to be anti-paleo is because it starts on a false premise: the paleo diet concentrates on meat with a supplement of fruits and veggies.
***********************
No, that is not what the article says. It says that Paleo man ate leaves, fruits, nuts, vegetables and insects, primarily with the occasional mouse or humming bird.
And Paleo is focused on meat. I went to a Paleo website by and for Paleos and the only food they had photos of from a Paleo convention was raw meat,
You really want to do more with insects.
*************************************
The article clearly does not say that early man was a vegetarian.
***********************************
Again wrong. Read it again. It said that early hominids were entirely vegetarian, except again possibly for insects. As you go to Homo erectus, this changed, but before Homo erectus, it was likely all or mostly veggies.
***********************************
In fact, the article points out that man's digestive tract isn't the same as a herbivore's digestive tract. It also states that early man's diet focused on fruits and veggies and was supplemented with meat.
**********************************
It says correctly that man's digestive tract is more flexible than a cows, but it very clearly points out that the best evidence is that man's early diet was PRIMARILY vegetarian, and that was more true the further back you go.
**********************************
The one thing I like about this article is that it says that everyone should choose the diet that works best for him/her. This is true.
**********************************
Again I think you are totally misunderstanding what he is saying. He said BASED ON YOUR ANCESTRY, choose the diet that is best for you. If you happent to be an Inuit or a Lapp, that may be a highly meat centered diet, but if you're almost anyone else it is almost certainly vegetarian.
**********************************
You must always fight the fight to "prove" vegetarianism is the only way, mustn't you?0 -
I personally think that "Paleo" and "primal" are slight misnomers really. Due to the fact that we are not actually living in caves and catching our own moose or dinosaur burgers or whatever, or eating our berries and nuts fresh from the trees, I don't think we can claim to be following a diet that is particularly close to our ancestors.
I do actually eat according to the primal blueprint, but it is not for weight loss reasons, it is because I have coeliac and Crohns, and it happens to be the diet I tolerate best. So maybe there is something in the theory that some of us have evolved to eat grains and dairy, and some of us tolerate them less well.
The incidence of lactose intolerance in Asian populations, for example, is high, because traditionally their diet is low in dairy. But the incidence of coeliac disease in populations whose diet is not heavily wheat based is very low. So it's not clear cut - just because you come from a particular ethnographic group who have traditionally had a diet based around a certain product (whether it be meat, grains, dairy, bananas, whatever), it doesn't mean you won't develop an allergy, or autoimmune condition like coeliac disease.0 -
I personally think that "Paleo" and "primal" are slight misnomers really. Due to the fact that we are not actually living in caves and catching our own moose or dinosaur burgers or whatever, or eating our berries and nuts fresh from the trees, I don't think we can claim to be following a diet that is particularly close to our ancestors.
I do actually eat according to the primal blueprint, but it is not for weight loss reasons, it is because I have coeliac and Crohns, and it happens to be the diet I tolerate best. So maybe there is something in the theory that some of us have evolved to eat grains and dairy, and some of us tolerate them less well.
The incidence of lactose intolerance in Asian populations, for example, is high, because traditionally their diet is low in dairy. But the incidence of coeliac disease in populations whose diet is not heavily wheat based is very low. So it's not clear cut - just because you come from a particular ethnographic group who have traditionally had a diet based around a certain product (whether it be meat, grains, dairy, bananas, whatever), it doesn't mean you won't develop an allergy, or autoimmune condition like coeliac disease.
I understand that individuals with serious conditions requiring life-saving dietary restriction(s) must consider their individual needs first and foremost. Metabolic disorders, allergies, sensitivities and the like are not to be trifled with, and I well understand how the greater popularity of gluten and dairy-free diets make things easier for people with celiac disease and lactose deficiencies. That's a very good thing! But, I am bringing up this discussion for those who are drawn to restricted diets without serious pre-conditions. Still, you made a really interesting point. Thanks for posting!0 -
The article supports what most true Paleo dieters say: eat whole fruits and veggies and supplement with meat. The reason the article seems to be anti-paleo is because it starts on a false premise: the paleo diet concentrates on meat with a supplement of fruits and veggies.
***********************
No, that is not what the article says. It says that Paleo man ate leaves, fruits, nuts, vegetables and insects, primarily with the occasional mouse or humming bird.
And Paleo is focused on meat. I went to a Paleo website by and for Paleos and the only food they had photos of from a Paleo convention was raw meat,
You really want to do more with insects.
*************************************
The article clearly does not say that early man was a vegetarian.
***********************************
Again wrong. Read it again. It said that early hominids were entirely vegetarian, except again possibly for insects. As you go to Homo erectus, this changed, but before Homo erectus, it was likely all or mostly veggies.
***********************************
In fact, the article points out that man's digestive tract isn't the same as a herbivore's digestive tract. It also states that early man's diet focused on fruits and veggies and was supplemented with meat.
**********************************
It says correctly that man's digestive tract is more flexible than a cows, but it very clearly points out that the best evidence is that man's early diet was PRIMARILY vegetarian, and that was more true the further back you go.
**********************************
The one thing I like about this article is that it says that everyone should choose the diet that works best for him/her. This is true.
**********************************
Again I think you are totally misunderstanding what he is saying. He said BASED ON YOUR ANCESTRY, choose the diet that is best for you. If you happent to be an Inuit or a Lapp, that may be a highly meat centered diet, but if you're almost anyone else it is almost certainly vegetarian.
**********************************
You must always fight the fight to "prove" vegetarianism is the only way, mustn't you?
Look, I didn't write the article, but I did understand it. It said what it said.0 -
The article supports what most true Paleo dieters say: eat whole fruits and veggies and supplement with meat. The reason the article seems to be anti-paleo is because it starts on a false premise: the paleo diet concentrates on meat with a supplement of fruits and veggies.
***********************
No, that is not what the article says. It says that Paleo man ate leaves, fruits, nuts, vegetables and insects, primarily with the occasional mouse or humming bird.
And Paleo is focused on meat. I went to a Paleo website by and for Paleos and the only food they had photos of from a Paleo convention was raw meat,
You really want to do more with insects.
*************************************
The article clearly does not say that early man was a vegetarian.
***********************************
Again wrong. Read it again. It said that early hominids were entirely vegetarian, except again possibly for insects. As you go to Homo erectus, this changed, but before Homo erectus, it was likely all or mostly veggies.
***********************************
In fact, the article points out that man's digestive tract isn't the same as a herbivore's digestive tract. It also states that early man's diet focused on fruits and veggies and was supplemented with meat.
**********************************
It says correctly that man's digestive tract is more flexible than a cows, but it very clearly points out that the best evidence is that man's early diet was PRIMARILY vegetarian, and that was more true the further back you go.
**********************************
The one thing I like about this article is that it says that everyone should choose the diet that works best for him/her. This is true.
**********************************
Again I think you are totally misunderstanding what he is saying. He said BASED ON YOUR ANCESTRY, choose the diet that is best for you. If you happent to be an Inuit or a Lapp, that may be a highly meat centered diet, but if you're almost anyone else it is almost certainly vegetarian.
**********************************
You must always fight the fight to "prove" vegetarianism is the only way, mustn't you?
Look, I didn't write the article, but I did understand it. It said what it said.
Well, the last time I checked, insects were NOT vegetables.0 -
Just a suggestion to VegesaurusRex and Beckajw: I would have an easier time following your comments if you quoted parts of the article which you wish to emphasize.
Edit: I thought I would offer this quote from the article, which I found in the footnotes:
"I know, what I have shown is not that our ancestors were vegetarians but instead that they tended to mostly eat vegetable matter. Here though I am using the definition of vegetarian that most humans use where someone is a vegetarian if they decline meat in public but occasionally, when no one is looking, sneak a beef jerky. The modern vegetarian’s illicit beef jerky is the ancestral vegetarian’s crunchy frog."
The author obviously has a sense of humor about the subject, which I think would be a great thing to see here, too.0 -
I finished reading the article and found it meandering, patronizing, and in many places, an example of lazy scholarship. Parenthetically, I have no dog in this fight; I don't eat "Paleo," and I'm not a vegan.
************
I found it humorous and substantially in accord with every anthro course I ever had.
***********
The first thing any critical thinker with even a modicum of meaningful professional experience does before considering the value of a scientific source is to consider whether it may be subject to funding, ideological, or political bias. I'd only note that the author of this article appears to be a member of a "raw food" vegan meetup group. http://www.meetup.com/RawLasVegas/members/54092372/
***********
And how much funding did he get from the Raw Foodists? Also, he gave his personal diet as including chocolate and wine. Are these now considered to be raw foods?
***********
With the foregoing in mind, the article raises a lot of obvious questions:
1. What do the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and us all have in common, and what happened to all of our vegetarian relatives throughout evolution?
********
Interesting you should bring up the Denisovans. From what I know the only evidence we have of them is a tooth and a small bone. From that they obtained the genome, but I am not sure what you can tell from that. They appear to be distinct from both humans and Neanderthals but able to interbreed with both. I would be delighted to hear what you know about them.
As for the Neanderthals there was a recent article in Nature about them:
http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-ate-their-greens-1.11030
The article claimed they were far more vegetarian than anyone had ever guessed.
**********************
2. Do the guts of chimpanzees and orangutans have zonulin?
*******************
What on earth does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
******************
3. Did our guts shorten compared to other apes and did we end up with larger brains? If so, is it likely that these things occurred as a result of eating more calorie dense foods or less calorie dense foods?
*****************
Very likely more calorie dense food. See Homo erectus. However for the past 30,000 years we have been eating the most calorie dense food in our species history, and our brains are shrinking. Also, Neanderthal, now extinct, had much larger brains than we did.
Size is not all that matters.
*****************
Is there a more plausible theory than the so-called "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis?"
*****************
Maybe, according to Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/abs/nature10629.html
****************
4. Is our masticatory systems the same as chimps and orangutans?
*****************
Essentially yes. Can you be more specific? What are you looking for?
*****************
5. Has there been any credible challenge to the "Man the Hunter" theory that didn't involve eating copious meat?
**************
Yes.
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/4582.aspx
**************0 -
The article supports what most true Paleo dieters say: eat whole fruits and veggies and supplement with meat. The reason the article seems to be anti-paleo is because it starts on a false premise: the paleo diet concentrates on meat with a supplement of fruits and veggies.
***********************
No, that is not what the article says. It says that Paleo man ate leaves, fruits, nuts, vegetables and insects, primarily with the occasional mouse or humming bird.
And Paleo is focused on meat. I went to a Paleo website by and for Paleos and the only food they had photos of from a Paleo convention was raw meat,
You really want to do more with insects.
*************************************
The article clearly does not say that early man was a vegetarian.
***********************************
Again wrong. Read it again. It said that early hominids were entirely vegetarian, except again possibly for insects. As you go to Homo erectus, this changed, but before Homo erectus, it was likely all or mostly veggies.
***********************************
In fact, the article points out that man's digestive tract isn't the same as a herbivore's digestive tract. It also states that early man's diet focused on fruits and veggies and was supplemented with meat.
**********************************
It says correctly that man's digestive tract is more flexible than a cows, but it very clearly points out that the best evidence is that man's early diet was PRIMARILY vegetarian, and that was more true the further back you go.
**********************************
The one thing I like about this article is that it says that everyone should choose the diet that works best for him/her. This is true.
**********************************
Again I think you are totally misunderstanding what he is saying. He said BASED ON YOUR ANCESTRY, choose the diet that is best for you. If you happent to be an Inuit or a Lapp, that may be a highly meat centered diet, but if you're almost anyone else it is almost certainly vegetarian.
**********************************
You must always fight the fight to "prove" vegetarianism is the only way, mustn't you?
Look, I didn't write the article, but I did understand it. It said what it said.
Well, the last time I checked, insects were NOT vegetables.
I don't remember saying they were. Nor were insects likely a major part of the Hominid diet prior to Homo erectus.0 -
I finished reading the article and found it meandering, patronizing, and in many places, an example of lazy scholarship. Parenthetically, I have no dog in this fight; I don't eat "Paleo," and I'm not a vegan.
************
I found it humorous and substantially in accord with every anthro course I ever had.
***********
The first thing any critical thinker with even a modicum of meaningful professional experience does before considering the value of a scientific source is to consider whether it may be subject to funding, ideological, or political bias. I'd only note that the author of this article appears to be a member of a "raw food" vegan meetup group. http://www.meetup.com/RawLasVegas/members/54092372/
***********
And how much funding did he get from the Raw Foodists? Also, he gave his personal diet as including chocolate and wine. Are these now considered to be raw foods?
***********
With the foregoing in mind, the article raises a lot of obvious questions:
1. What do the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and us all have in common, and what happened to all of our vegetarian relatives throughout evolution?
********
Interesting you should bring up the Denisovans. From what I know the only evidence we have of them is a tooth and a small bone. From that they obtained the genome, but I am not sure what you can tell from that. They appear to be distinct from both humans and Neanderthals but able to interbreed with both. I would be delighted to hear what you know about them.
As for the Neanderthals there was a recent article in Nature about them:
http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-ate-their-greens-1.11030
The article claimed they were far more vegetarian than anyone had ever guessed.
**********************
2. Do the guts of chimpanzees and orangutans have zonulin?
*******************
What on earth does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
******************
3. Did our guts shorten compared to other apes and did we end up with larger brains? If so, is it likely that these things occurred as a result of eating more calorie dense foods or less calorie dense foods?
*****************
Very likely more calorie dense food. See Homo erectus. However for the past 30,000 years we have been eating the most calorie dense food in our species history, and our brains are shrinking. Also, Neanderthal, now extinct, had much larger brains than we did.
Size is not all that matters.
*****************
Is there a more plausible theory than the so-called "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis?"
*****************
Maybe, according to Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/abs/nature10629.html
****************
4. Is our masticatory systems the same as chimps and orangutans?
*****************
Essentially yes. Can you be more specific? What are you looking for?
*****************
5. Has there been any credible challenge to the "Man the Hunter" theory that didn't involve eating copious meat?
**************
Yes.
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/4582.aspx
**************
To your first response, I don't doubt it. To your second response, eating chocolate and wine shows he's not a purist and is dispositive of little else.
1. Reread the question and answer it.
2. Our guts are morphologically different, and it certainly isn't because of eating vegetables.
3. Humor me.
4. "Essentially?" How are they different?
5. Sussman's work is viewed as contrarian - wildly so. We obviously have a far different understanding of what "credible" means.0 -
I finished reading the article and found it meandering, patronizing, and in many places, an example of lazy scholarship. Parenthetically, I have no dog in this fight; I don't eat "Paleo," and I'm not a vegan.
************
I found it humorous and substantially in accord with every anthro course I ever had.
***********
The first thing any critical thinker with even a modicum of meaningful professional experience does before considering the value of a scientific source is to consider whether it may be subject to funding, ideological, or political bias. I'd only note that the author of this article appears to be a member of a "raw food" vegan meetup group. http://www.meetup.com/RawLasVegas/members/54092372/
***********
And how much funding did he get from the Raw Foodists? Also, he gave his personal diet as including chocolate and wine. Are these now considered to be raw foods?
***********
With the foregoing in mind, the article raises a lot of obvious questions:
1. What do the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and us all have in common, and what happened to all of our vegetarian relatives throughout evolution?
********
Interesting you should bring up the Denisovans. From what I know the only evidence we have of them is a tooth and a small bone. From that they obtained the genome, but I am not sure what you can tell from that. They appear to be distinct from both humans and Neanderthals but able to interbreed with both. I would be delighted to hear what you know about them.
As for the Neanderthals there was a recent article in Nature about them:
http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-ate-their-greens-1.11030
The article claimed they were far more vegetarian than anyone had ever guessed.
**********************
2. Do the guts of chimpanzees and orangutans have zonulin?
*******************
What on earth does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
******************
3. Did our guts shorten compared to other apes and did we end up with larger brains? If so, is it likely that these things occurred as a result of eating more calorie dense foods or less calorie dense foods?
*****************
Very likely more calorie dense food. See Homo erectus. However for the past 30,000 years we have been eating the most calorie dense food in our species history, and our brains are shrinking. Also, Neanderthal, now extinct, had much larger brains than we did.
Size is not all that matters.
*****************
Is there a more plausible theory than the so-called "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis?"
*****************
Maybe, according to Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/abs/nature10629.html
****************
4. Is our masticatory systems the same as chimps and orangutans?
*****************
Essentially yes. Can you be more specific? What are you looking for?
*****************
5. Has there been any credible challenge to the "Man the Hunter" theory that didn't involve eating copious meat?
**************
Yes.
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/4582.aspx
**************
I would really like to see Spartan do more than present a litany or unanswered questions. If Spartan thinks they are salient questions, it behooves him to say why he thinks that, and do us the courtesy of explaining his reasoning. The way he presents these questions makes him appear 'expert' on this subject without presenting any substantive information to make his case.
Edit: I am basically saying 'Say what you need to say.'0 -
I finished reading the article and found it meandering, patronizing, and in many places, an example of lazy scholarship. Parenthetically, I have no dog in this fight; I don't eat "Paleo," and I'm not a vegan.
************
I found it humorous and substantially in accord with every anthro course I ever had.
***********
The first thing any critical thinker with even a modicum of meaningful professional experience does before considering the value of a scientific source is to consider whether it may be subject to funding, ideological, or political bias. I'd only note that the author of this article appears to be a member of a "raw food" vegan meetup group. http://www.meetup.com/RawLasVegas/members/54092372/
***********
And how much funding did he get from the Raw Foodists? Also, he gave his personal diet as including chocolate and wine. Are these now considered to be raw foods?
***********
With the foregoing in mind, the article raises a lot of obvious questions:
1. What do the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and us all have in common, and what happened to all of our vegetarian relatives throughout evolution?
********
Interesting you should bring up the Denisovans. From what I know the only evidence we have of them is a tooth and a small bone. From that they obtained the genome, but I am not sure what you can tell from that. They appear to be distinct from both humans and Neanderthals but able to interbreed with both. I would be delighted to hear what you know about them.
As for the Neanderthals there was a recent article in Nature about them:
http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-ate-their-greens-1.11030
The article claimed they were far more vegetarian than anyone had ever guessed.
**********************
2. Do the guts of chimpanzees and orangutans have zonulin?
*******************
What on earth does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
******************
3. Did our guts shorten compared to other apes and did we end up with larger brains? If so, is it likely that these things occurred as a result of eating more calorie dense foods or less calorie dense foods?
*****************
Very likely more calorie dense food. See Homo erectus. However for the past 30,000 years we have been eating the most calorie dense food in our species history, and our brains are shrinking. Also, Neanderthal, now extinct, had much larger brains than we did.
Size is not all that matters.
*****************
Is there a more plausible theory than the so-called "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis?"
*****************
Maybe, according to Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/abs/nature10629.html
****************
4. Is our masticatory systems the same as chimps and orangutans?
*****************
Essentially yes. Can you be more specific? What are you looking for?
*****************
5. Has there been any credible challenge to the "Man the Hunter" theory that didn't involve eating copious meat?
**************
Yes.
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/4582.aspx
**************
I would really like to see Spartan do more than present a litany or unanswered questions. If Spartan thinks they are salient questions, it behooves him to say why he thinks that, and do us the courtesy of explaining his reasoning. The way he presents these questions makes him appear 'expert' on this subject without presenting any substantive information to make his case.
Edit: I am basically saying 'Say what you need to say.'
To do any more than I've already done would be to belabor the obvious, which says far more about whether you should have posted the article in the first place, than it does about my relative level of expertise.0 -
I finished reading the article and found it meandering, patronizing, and in many places, an example of lazy scholarship. Parenthetically, I have no dog in this fight; I don't eat "Paleo," and I'm not a vegan.
************
I found it humorous and substantially in accord with every anthro course I ever had.
***********
The first thing any critical thinker with even a modicum of meaningful professional experience does before considering the value of a scientific source is to consider whether it may be subject to funding, ideological, or political bias. I'd only note that the author of this article appears to be a member of a "raw food" vegan meetup group. http://www.meetup.com/RawLasVegas/members/54092372/
***********
And how much funding did he get from the Raw Foodists? Also, he gave his personal diet as including chocolate and wine. Are these now considered to be raw foods?
***********
With the foregoing in mind, the article raises a lot of obvious questions:
1. What do the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and us all have in common, and what happened to all of our vegetarian relatives throughout evolution?
********
Interesting you should bring up the Denisovans. From what I know the only evidence we have of them is a tooth and a small bone. From that they obtained the genome, but I am not sure what you can tell from that. They appear to be distinct from both humans and Neanderthals but able to interbreed with both. I would be delighted to hear what you know about them.
As for the Neanderthals there was a recent article in Nature about them:
http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-ate-their-greens-1.11030
The article claimed they were far more vegetarian than anyone had ever guessed.
**********************
2. Do the guts of chimpanzees and orangutans have zonulin?
*******************
What on earth does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
******************
3. Did our guts shorten compared to other apes and did we end up with larger brains? If so, is it likely that these things occurred as a result of eating more calorie dense foods or less calorie dense foods?
*****************
Very likely more calorie dense food. See Homo erectus. However for the past 30,000 years we have been eating the most calorie dense food in our species history, and our brains are shrinking. Also, Neanderthal, now extinct, had much larger brains than we did.
Size is not all that matters.
*****************
Is there a more plausible theory than the so-called "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis?"
*****************
Maybe, according to Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/abs/nature10629.html
****************
4. Is our masticatory systems the same as chimps and orangutans?
*****************
Essentially yes. Can you be more specific? What are you looking for?
*****************
5. Has there been any credible challenge to the "Man the Hunter" theory that didn't involve eating copious meat?
**************
Yes.
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/4582.aspx
**************
I would really like to see Spartan do more than present a litany or unanswered questions. If Spartan thinks they are salient questions, it behooves him to say why he thinks that, and do us the courtesy of explaining his reasoning. The way he presents these questions makes him appear 'expert' on this subject without presenting any substantive information to make his case.
Edit: I am basically saying 'Say what you need to say.'
To do any more than I've already done would be to belabor the obvious, which says far more about whether you should have posted the article in the first place, than it does about my relative level of expertise.
I notice you call the author of the Scientific American article 'pedantic.' Perhaps you found him haughty and above the need to explain himself. That's a bad thing, don't you think?0 -
I never used the word "pedantic." On the contrary, I called his scholarship "lazy."
To even a casual reader, it should be clear that my questions were largely rhetorical, and that's why there hasn't been a single credible response to any of them.0 -
I still haven't gotten the answer of why should evolved humans eat like their unevolved ancestors?
And George Washington Carver is one of my heroes. Peanuts everyday, in every way, until the world ends! :laugh:
(Thought this thread could use some humor.)
:bigsmile:0 -
I finished reading the article and found it meandering, patronizing, and in many places, an example of lazy scholarship. Parenthetically, I have no dog in this fight; I don't eat "Paleo," and I'm not a vegan.
************
I found it humorous and substantially in accord with every anthro course I ever had.
***********
The first thing any critical thinker with even a modicum of meaningful professional experience does before considering the value of a scientific source is to consider whether it may be subject to funding, ideological, or political bias. I'd only note that the author of this article appears to be a member of a "raw food" vegan meetup group. http://www.meetup.com/RawLasVegas/members/54092372/
***********
And how much funding did he get from the Raw Foodists? Also, he gave his personal diet as including chocolate and wine. Are these now considered to be raw foods?
***********
With the foregoing in mind, the article raises a lot of obvious questions:
1. What do the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and us all have in common, and what happened to all of our vegetarian relatives throughout evolution?
********
Interesting you should bring up the Denisovans. From what I know the only evidence we have of them is a tooth and a small bone. From that they obtained the genome, but I am not sure what you can tell from that. They appear to be distinct from both humans and Neanderthals but able to interbreed with both. I would be delighted to hear what you know about them.
As for the Neanderthals there was a recent article in Nature about them:
http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-ate-their-greens-1.11030
The article claimed they were far more vegetarian than anyone had ever guessed.
**********************
2. Do the guts of chimpanzees and orangutans have zonulin?
*******************
What on earth does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
******************
3. Did our guts shorten compared to other apes and did we end up with larger brains? If so, is it likely that these things occurred as a result of eating more calorie dense foods or less calorie dense foods?
*****************
Very likely more calorie dense food. See Homo erectus. However for the past 30,000 years we have been eating the most calorie dense food in our species history, and our brains are shrinking. Also, Neanderthal, now extinct, had much larger brains than we did.
Size is not all that matters.
*****************
Is there a more plausible theory than the so-called "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis?"
*****************
Maybe, according to Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/abs/nature10629.html
****************
4. Is our masticatory systems the same as chimps and orangutans?
*****************
Essentially yes. Can you be more specific? What are you looking for?
*****************
5. Has there been any credible challenge to the "Man the Hunter" theory that didn't involve eating copious meat?
**************
Yes.
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/4582.aspx
**************
To your first response, I don't doubt it. To your second response, eating chocolate and wine shows he's not a purist and is dispositive of little else.
1. Reread the question and answer it.
2. Our guts are morphologically different, and it certainly isn't because of eating vegetables.
3. Humor me.
4. "Essentially?" How are they different?
5. Sussman's work is viewed as contrarian - wildly so. We obviously have a far different understanding of what "credible" means.
Okay, your response sucks. Like VOV says, if you have something to say, say it. If you want to have a real conversation, I am fine with that. If you want to act like a dork, fine but I am not participating.
Just for example, you implied that the author of that article was receiving money from raw foodist groups, which frankly I find totally absurd. But hey, that's your theory. THen when I point out he eats chocolate and wine, you say, "maybe he is not a purist." Wha??? Try to be logical. If he is getting funding from raw foodists give me some evidence. Otherwise you're just farting in the wind. Then you ask me for a credible theory that is opposed to the Man as a Hunter theory. I cite a Nature article and then you make some dumb condescending response. ("we have a different understanding of what credible means. ") Yeah right. Nature is a stupid rag whose editors are jerks. You know more than they do, right?
If you are trying to establish yourself as a pompous *kitten* you are doing a great job. I've answered your questions and if you want to discuss things fine. If you want to play games, play with yourself.0 -
I never used the word "pedantic." On the contrary, I called his scholarship "lazy."
To even a casual reader, it should be clear that my questions were largely rhetorical, and that's why there hasn't been a single credible response to any of them.
This is the internet. Try telegraphing your thinking by actually stating it. Socratic methods are inherently irritating in casual discussions. So, you have my ear: in what ways do the questions you raise trump the author's conclusions? I might point out that the mark of extreme intellect is to be able make complex subjects accessible to a general audience. Perhaps you would deign to enlighten us.0 -
I finished reading the article and found it meandering, patronizing, and in many places, an example of lazy scholarship. Parenthetically, I have no dog in this fight; I don't eat "Paleo," and I'm not a vegan.
************
I found it humorous and substantially in accord with every anthro course I ever had.
***********
The first thing any critical thinker with even a modicum of meaningful professional experience does before considering the value of a scientific source is to consider whether it may be subject to funding, ideological, or political bias. I'd only note that the author of this article appears to be a member of a "raw food" vegan meetup group. http://www.meetup.com/RawLasVegas/members/54092372/
***********
And how much funding did he get from the Raw Foodists? Also, he gave his personal diet as including chocolate and wine. Are these now considered to be raw foods?
***********
With the foregoing in mind, the article raises a lot of obvious questions:
1. What do the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and us all have in common, and what happened to all of our vegetarian relatives throughout evolution?
********
Interesting you should bring up the Denisovans. From what I know the only evidence we have of them is a tooth and a small bone. From that they obtained the genome, but I am not sure what you can tell from that. They appear to be distinct from both humans and Neanderthals but able to interbreed with both. I would be delighted to hear what you know about them.
As for the Neanderthals there was a recent article in Nature about them:
http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-ate-their-greens-1.11030
The article claimed they were far more vegetarian than anyone had ever guessed.
**********************
2. Do the guts of chimpanzees and orangutans have zonulin?
*******************
What on earth does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
******************
3. Did our guts shorten compared to other apes and did we end up with larger brains? If so, is it likely that these things occurred as a result of eating more calorie dense foods or less calorie dense foods?
*****************
Very likely more calorie dense food. See Homo erectus. However for the past 30,000 years we have been eating the most calorie dense food in our species history, and our brains are shrinking. Also, Neanderthal, now extinct, had much larger brains than we did.
Size is not all that matters.
*****************
Is there a more plausible theory than the so-called "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis?"
*****************
Maybe, according to Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/abs/nature10629.html
****************
4. Is our masticatory systems the same as chimps and orangutans?
*****************
Essentially yes. Can you be more specific? What are you looking for?
*****************
5. Has there been any credible challenge to the "Man the Hunter" theory that didn't involve eating copious meat?
**************
Yes.
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/4582.aspx
**************
To your first response, I don't doubt it. To your second response, eating chocolate and wine shows he's not a purist and is dispositive of little else.
1. Reread the question and answer it.
2. Our guts are morphologically different, and it certainly isn't because of eating vegetables.
3. Humor me.
4. "Essentially?" How are they different?
5. Sussman's work is viewed as contrarian - wildly so. We obviously have a far different understanding of what "credible" means.
Okay, your response sucks. Like VOV says, if you have something to say, say it. If you want to have a real conversation, I am fine with that. If you want to act like a dork, fine but I am not participating.
Just for example, you implied that the author of that article was receiving money from raw foodist groups, which frankly I find totally absurd. But hey, that's your theory. THen when I point out he eats chocolate and wine, you say, "maybe he is not a purist." Wha??? Try to be logical. If he is getting funding from raw foodists give me some evidence. Otherwise you're just farting in the wind. Then you ask me for a credible theory that is opposed to the Man as a Hunter theory. I cite a Nature article and then you make some dumb condescending response. ("we have a different understanding of what credible means. ") Yeah right. Nature is a stupid rag whose editors are jerks. You know more than they do, right?
If you are trying to establish yourself as a pompous *kitten* you are doing a great job. I've answered your questions and if you want to discuss things fine. If you want to play games, play with yourself.
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs. Incidentally, why do so many in this cult constantly fall back on scatological metaphors? Is it the diet?
Man-up.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
- 401 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
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions