What is the REAL paleo diet?

bcattoes

Thanks for sharing that. Very interesting stuff. Since, realistically, evolution in everything else in nature (along with us) makes it impossible to eat the same foods as any of these previous eras, I think this one sentence sums it all up:

"Any of these possibilities are better than the average modern diet"

Whatever diet you choose, if it allows you to obtain and maintain a healthy weight and includes plenty of whole natural foods, it's going to be better than what many like to refer to as the SAD (standard American diet) rich in man made additives, overly processed foods and way too much sugar and calories.

_VoV

Thanks for sharing that. Very interesting stuff. Since, realistically, evolution in everything else in nature (along with us) makes it impossible to eat the same foods as any of these previous eras, I think this one sentence sums it all up:

"Any of these possibilities are better than the average modern diet"

Whatever diet you choose, if it allows you to obtain and maintain a healthy weight and includes plenty of whole natural foods, it's going to be better than what many like to refer to as the SAD (standard American diet) rich in man made additives, overly processed foods and way too much sugar and calories.

Well said!

VegesaurusRex

sneaking in with this - then running for cover

Eating Meat Made Us Human, Suggests New Skull Fossil
http://news.yahoo.com/eating-meat-made-us-human-suggests-skull-fossil-211048849.html

Food For Thought: Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter
http://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128849908/food-for-thought-meat-based-diet-made-us-smarter

Yes, you are referring to the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis that Professor Bozzo was talking about like it was some big mystery. This is the hypothesis that certain tissue is more expensive in terms of energy than other tissue. As I understand it, it means that an organ like the brain which is 22 times more expensive than the intestine in terms of energy consumed could only get bigger at the expense of some other organ. Thus, as it goes, the brain got bigger as the intestine got smaller. Most anthropologists believe that this process began with eating meat extensively, notably with the evolution of Homo erectus.

The hypothesis requires that a source of condensed energy be available. The conventional thinking is that occurred when man learned how to hunt. The discovery of the Oldowan tools in Africa included tools for hunting and other activities related to eating meat and these tools stemmed from the Lower Paleolithic, about 2 million years ago. The brain size of the most populous Hominids at that time, the Australopithicenes was about 350 cc, and that of H. erectus was about 600 cc,while brain size of H. erectus was about 1100cc. Modern man has a brain about 1350 cc.. Brain size of Neanderthals, however were about 1500 cc.

Of course other hypotheses could also explain the increase in brain size. First, easy to digest concentrated calories do no have to be meat - they could be, for example, nuts. Most likely it was meat, however, at least according to conventional theory, theory espoused by anthropologists who have no imagination and only know how to do rote memorization.

Also, more condensed energy has been available in the form of meat and other things in the last 30,000 years than at any other time in history, but our brains have actually shrunk during that time. And the Neanderthal with the relatively huge brain went extinct. So there are still questions to be answered, and the conclusion that eating meat makes you smarter is open to criticism.

VegesaurusRex

I should also mention that the article that Professor Bozzo said was "Contrarian" also addressed this point and stated the hypothesis that communal activities, better care of children and working together for the safety of the community would also explain the increase in brain size.

But because Professor Bozzo said that was contrarian, it must not be true.

But if you want to look it up, despite what Professor Bozzo says go to:

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/4582.aspx

Also, cooking came in about that time and cooked tubers may have been responsible for larger brain size.

Also, the following Nature article examines this hypothesis looking at a number of taxa:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/full/nature10629.html

This study shows that:

There is no negative correlation between brain size and gut size in any mammalian taxa, refuting the ETH's prediction to the contrary;

There is, however, a strong negative correlation between brain size and adipose tissue deposits; that is, fatter animals have smaller brains than lean ones; and,

Humans are seeming exceptions to this rule because our fat deposits don't interfere adversely with our means of locomotion, thus freeing up energy for encephalization that other primates have to use for carrying around all that fat.

caribougal

I'm exhausted by reading this thread.

It doesn't look like too many "Paleos" have replied, aside from a few really boring cat fights.

So... here's what this "Paleo" thought of the article.

"An entire class of self-help books recommends a return to the diets of our ancestors. Paleolithic diets, caveman diets, primal diets and the like, urge us to eat like the ancients. Taken too literally, such diets are ridiculous. After all, sometimes our ancestors starved to death and the starving to death diet, well, it ends badly. The past was no panacea; each generation we made due with the bodies and foods available, imperfect bodies and imperfect foods. Yet, the idea that we might take our ancestral diet into consideration when evaluating the foods on which our organs, cells and existence thrive, makes sense. "

Well said, author! People eating Paleo now are not trying to achieve a reenactment of the diets of our early modern ancestors (or even earlier humanoid ancestors). We're not eating mastodons or even mammoths, although clearly some early humans did (even though the author implies they only ate insects and the occasional frog or bird, we do know that large mammals were hunted/scavenged by humans). Our early ancestors ate what they could to survive, and sometimes, thrive. I think it's more important to look at what they DIDN'T eat. Until only a few thousand years ago, which is really just a blip of our existence on earth, humans didn't eat grains. Humans didn't eat processed foods with lots of chemical additives and preservatives. Humans didn't eat a whole lot of sugar. They didn't eat fast food. They didn't eat dessert every night. That's what the current "Paleo" diet is about.

"When we talk about “paleo” diets, we arbitrarily tend to start with one set of ancestors, our most recent ones. I want to eat like Homo erectus or a Neanderthal or a stone age human, my neighbors testify. But why do we choose these particular ancestors as starting points?"

It does make sense to me to focus more on our recent Hominid past than to go back to earlier branches of hominids. The author compares us to apes, gorillas and other primates that eat mostly plant matter. The author does say that chimps, our closes relative, does eat mammals more than any other primate, but then the author dismisses that. But... it's a minor point.

"Just like us, our ancestors made the best of their circumstances. They were not at one with nature. Nature tried to kill them and starve them out; they survived anyway, sometimes with more meat, sometimes with less, thanks in part to the ancient flexibility of our guts. As for me, I’ll choose to eat the fruits and nuts like my early ancestors. I’ll supplement them with some of the great beans of agriculture, too much coffee, maybe a glass of wine and some chocolate. These supplements are not paleo by any definition, but I like them. "

Right. Sometimes our ancestors ate more meat, sometimes less. I'm willing to bet that they ate meat as often as they could get it, and in some parts of the world it was easier to get than in other parts. Just like in some parts of the world fruits, veggies, and nuts were easier to get than in other parts. As for me, I'll choose to eat the fruits and nuts like my early ancestors. And the meat that I can easily access. And the coffee and dark chocolate that isn't Paleo, but that I make room for in my diet because they taste good and I'm addicted to caffeine.

Thanks to the OP for posting the article. I think it's entertaining. I don't think it is an evidence-based piece of science writing, and shouldn't be used as "evidence" of anything. But it's not meant to be that. It's a blog post on SA, and it's meant to be entertaining and thought-provoking, with reviews of the science in very broad strokes. The author admits there might be trillions of things he's right or wrong about... of course, the title of his blog post implies differently, but... whatever.

For me, the biggest benefits of the Paleo diet are that you eliminate the foods that tend to cause chronic, systemic inflammation, you reduce/eliminate the foods that most people tend to overeat, and you reduce the foods that tend to be psychological or emotional "triggers" for overeating. While the fact that it's close to what our ancestors eat is interesting to me, but it's not what drove me towards the diet, or what inspires me about the diet. I just like the way I feel when I eat this way, and I'm happy with the results I've seen since changing my diet.

And, Paleo fits into my food philosophy. Eat food that is fresh, grown locally, organic when possible, especially for the dirty dozen. Support farmers who grow plants and animals using sustainable methods.

Grok on.

_VoV

Thanks, Rachel. I'm trying to keep this thread on track.

_VoV

I'm exhausted by reading this thread.

It doesn't look like too many "Paleos" have replied, aside from a few really boring cat fights.

So... here's what this "Paleo" thought of the article.

"An entire class of self-help books recommends a return to the diets of our ancestors. Paleolithic diets, caveman diets, primal diets and the like, urge us to eat like the ancients. Taken too literally, such diets are ridiculous. After all, sometimes our ancestors starved to death and the starving to death diet, well, it ends badly. The past was no panacea; each generation we made due with the bodies and foods available, imperfect bodies and imperfect foods. Yet, the idea that we might take our ancestral diet into consideration when evaluating the foods on which our organs, cells and existence thrive, makes sense. "

Well said, author! People eating Paleo now are not trying to achieve a reenactment of the diets of our early modern ancestors (or even earlier humanoid ancestors). We're not eating mastodons or even mammoths, although clearly some early humans did (even though the author implies they only ate insects and the occasional frog or bird, we do know that large mammals were hunted/scavenged by humans). Our early ancestors ate what they could to survive, and sometimes, thrive. I think it's more important to look at what they DIDN'T eat. Until only a few thousand years ago, which is really just a blip of our existence on earth, humans didn't eat grains. Humans didn't eat processed foods with lots of chemical additives and preservatives. Humans didn't eat a whole lot of sugar. They didn't eat fast food. They didn't eat dessert every night. That's what the current "Paleo" diet is about.

"When we talk about “paleo” diets, we arbitrarily tend to start with one set of ancestors, our most recent ones. I want to eat like Homo erectus or a Neanderthal or a stone age human, my neighbors testify. But why do we choose these particular ancestors as starting points?"

It does make sense to me to focus more on our recent Hominid past than to go back to earlier branches of hominids. The author compares us to apes, gorillas and other primates that eat mostly plant matter. The author does say that chimps, our closes relative, does eat mammals more than any other primate, but then the author dismisses that. But... it's a minor point.

"Just like us, our ancestors made the best of their circumstances. They were not at one with nature. Nature tried to kill them and starve them out; they survived anyway, sometimes with more meat, sometimes with less, thanks in part to the ancient flexibility of our guts. As for me, I’ll choose to eat the fruits and nuts like my early ancestors. I’ll supplement them with some of the great beans of agriculture, too much coffee, maybe a glass of wine and some chocolate. These supplements are not paleo by any definition, but I like them. "

Right. Sometimes our ancestors ate more meat, sometimes less. I'm willing to bet that they ate meat as often as they could get it, and in some parts of the world it was easier to get than in other parts. Just like in some parts of the world fruits, veggies, and nuts were easier to get than in other parts. As for me, I'll choose to eat the fruits and nuts like my early ancestors. And the meat that I can easily access. And the coffee and dark chocolate that isn't Paleo, but that I make room for in my diet because they taste good and I'm addicted to caffeine.

Thanks to the OP for posting the article. I think it's entertaining. I don't think it is an evidence-based piece of science writing, and shouldn't be used as "evidence" of anything. But it's not meant to be that. It's a blog post on SA, and it's meant to be entertaining and thought-provoking, with reviews of the science in very broad strokes. The author admits there might be trillions of things he's right or wrong about... of course, the title of his blog post implies differently, but... whatever.

For me, the biggest benefits of the Paleo diet are that you eliminate the foods that tend to cause chronic, systemic inflammation, you reduce/eliminate the foods that most people tend to overeat, and you reduce the foods that tend to be psychological or emotional "triggers" for overeating. While the fact that it's close to what our ancestors eat is interesting to me, but it's not what drove me towards the diet, or what inspires me about the diet. I just like the way I feel when I eat this way, and I'm happy with the results I've seen since changing my diet.

And, Paleo fits into my food philosophy. Eat food that is fresh, grown locally, organic when possible, especially for the dirty dozen. Support farmers who grow plants and animals using sustainable methods.

Grok on.

Thanks for sharing your interesting reaction to some of the points made in the article. I agree that this article is grist for the mill, and a good starting point for discussion. It has a humorous and casual style, and as such, is more thought-provoking than it is hard science.

perfectingpatti

Talking to you is like talking to a creationist. It's true because your Bible says it's true. Hey, I bet you went to MIT -Mississippi Institute of Technology!

Not cool. I was actually interested in this topic and looking forward to some rational, helpful comments. You contributes to turning the OP's topic into a pissing match.

_VoV

Talking to you is like talking to a creationist. It's true because your Bible says it's true. Hey, I bet you went to MIT -Mississippi Institute of Technology!

Not cool. I was actually interested in this topic and looking forward to some rational, helpful comments. You contributes to turning the OP's topic into a pissing match.

I see no point in bragging about academic pedigrees, since we are anonymous here, and it's not that we can look up each other's CV's. Appeal to authority is actually a logical fallacy. I'm not swayed by such fallacies. People actually have my 'ear' here if they want to present rational arguments, so bring it on! Snark is another thing entirely--I have teens/twenties and I get enough snark at home.

VegesaurusRex

Talking to you is like talking to a creationist. It's true because your Bible says it's true. Hey, I bet you went to MIT -Mississippi Institute of Technology!

Not cool. I was actually interested in this topic and looking forward to some rational, helpful comments. You contributes to turning the OP's topic into a pissing match.

You are quite right. I was out of line. I apologize to any offended by this.

EvgeniZyntx

The idea that diet a, b or c (vegan, vegetarian, paleo, whatever) is healthier for macro-historical reasons is pure scientific nonsense. During vast periods of time rudimentary medicine left us mosty dead before 30 and suffering - our ancestors were not healthier. I'm guessing that living in caves and drinking infected river water is also something we evolved for. Not good ideas.
I'm willing to listen to ideas based on current day understanding of biology, not the idealization of "simple" lifestyle of flea-infested knuckle-draggers.

The jury is still out on the "ideal" diet, lifestyle, and music I should integrate into my life for health, longevity and peace of mind. Thankfully.

VegesaurusRex

I'm exhausted by reading this thread.

It doesn't look like too many "Paleos" have replied, aside from a few really boring cat fights.

So... here's what this "Paleo" thought of the article.

"An entire class of self-help books recommends a return to the diets of our ancestors. Paleolithic diets, caveman diets, primal diets and the like, urge us to eat like the ancients. Taken too literally, such diets are ridiculous. After all, sometimes our ancestors starved to death and the starving to death diet, well, it ends badly. The past was no panacea; each generation we made due with the bodies and foods available, imperfect bodies and imperfect foods. Yet, the idea that we might take our ancestral diet into consideration when evaluating the foods on which our organs, cells and existence thrive, makes sense. "

Well said, author! People eating Paleo now are not trying to achieve a reenactment of the diets of our early modern ancestors (or even earlier humanoid ancestors). We're not eating mastodons or even mammoths, although clearly some early humans did (even though the author implies they only ate insects and the occasional frog or bird, we do know that large mammals were hunted/scavenged by humans). Our early ancestors ate what they could to survive, and sometimes, thrive. I think it's more important to look at what they DIDN'T eat. Until only a few thousand years ago, which is really just a blip of our existence on earth, humans didn't eat grains. Humans didn't eat processed foods with lots of chemical additives and preservatives. Humans didn't eat a whole lot of sugar. They didn't eat fast food. They didn't eat dessert every night. That's what the current "Paleo" diet is about.


************************
Well, if you are using any ancient diet as the philosophical basis for your eating, you should know what that diet was. As the author said, and I agree, the Paleo diet actually depended pretty much on where you were. Obviously if you lived on an Island,you probably ate seafood. If you lived in a desert, you probably didn't eat seafood. Mammoths and mastodons probably were hunted, but probably not terribly successfully. As one of the articles I cited points out, humans were far more likely to be the hunted than the hunters. Probably 6 - 10% of them ended up as a meal for some other species.

You've also made the biggest mistake that Paleos often make: that Paleolithic man did not eat grains or processed foods. See:


http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101018/full/news.2010.549.html

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




"When we talk about “paleo” diets, we arbitrarily tend to start with one set of ancestors, our most recent ones. I want to eat like Homo erectus or a Neanderthal or a stone age human, my neighbors testify. But why do we choose these particular ancestors as starting points?"

It does make sense to me to focus more on our recent Hominid past than to go back to earlier branches of hominids. The author compares us to apes, gorillas and other primates that eat mostly plant matter. The author does say that chimps, our closes relative, does eat mammals more than any other primate, but then the author dismisses that. But... it's a minor point.

***********************
I believe he dismisses it because it is an infrequent occurrence.
***********************


"Just like us, our ancestors made the best of their circumstances. They were not at one with nature. Nature tried to kill them and starve them out; they survived anyway, sometimes with more meat, sometimes with less, thanks in part to the ancient flexibility of our guts. As for me, I’ll choose to eat the fruits and nuts like my early ancestors. I’ll supplement them with some of the great beans of agriculture, too much coffee, maybe a glass of wine and some chocolate. These supplements are not paleo by any definition, but I like them. "

Right. Sometimes our ancestors ate more meat, sometimes less. I'm willing to bet that they ate meat as often as they could get it, and in some parts of the world it was easier to get than in other parts.

************************
100% correct. But think about this - how many animals can you catch with your bare hands. A rabbit? Try it. Insects, however, are relatively easy to catch. Mastodons were not.
************************


Just like in some parts of the world fruits, veggies, and nuts were easier to get than in other parts. As for me, I'll choose to eat the fruits and nuts like my early ancestors. And the meat that I can easily access. And the coffee and dark chocolate that isn't Paleo, but that I make room for in my diet because they taste good and I'm addicted to caffeine.

************************
We are not living in a Paleolithic world. Does it really make sense to try to eat like we were? Eating meat is not necessary to get condensed energy. Nuts and protein bars are readily available. And chocolate is also good.
************************


Thanks to the OP for posting the article. I think it's entertaining. I don't think it is an evidence-based piece of science writing, and shouldn't be used as "evidence" of anything. But it's not meant to be that. It's a blog post on SA, and it's meant to be entertaining and thought-provoking, with reviews of the science in very broad strokes. The author admits there might be trillions of things he's right or wrong about... of course, the title of his blog post implies differently, but... whatever.

***********************
The writer is a scientist, and he basis the article on current science. In the course of this discussion I have posted a dozen or so article from Nature, which is a major scientific journal which publishes the best research from many branches of science. The author's point of view, which is similar to mine, is based on science.
***********************

For me, the biggest benefits of the Paleo diet are that you eliminate the foods that tend to cause chronic, systemic inflammation, you reduce/eliminate the foods that most people tend to overeat, and you reduce the foods that tend to be psychological or emotional "triggers" for overeating. While the fact that it's close to what our ancestors eat is interesting to me, but it's not what drove me towards the diet, or what inspires me about the diet. I just like the way I feel when I eat this way, and I'm happy with the results I've seen since changing my diet.

**********************
Good. With a diet like Paleo or Atkins I would be worried about doing long term damage. Neither diet has any reasonable relationship to the vast majority of actual Paleolithic diets. There are plenty of studies that show eating massive amounts of meat can cause chronic diseases. (Actually every study ever done on that pretty much agrees.)
*********************

And, Paleo fits into my food philosophy. Eat food that is fresh, grown locally, organic when possible, especially for the dirty dozen. Support farmers who grow plants and animals using sustainable methods.

*********************
Dirty dozen? I agree with getting local fresh produce.
*********************

Grok on.
[/quote]

VegesaurusRex

The idea that diet a, b or c (vegan, vegetarian, paleo, whatever) is healthier for macro-historical reasons is pure scientific nonsense. During vast periods of time rudimentary medicine left us mosty dead before 30 and suffering - our ancestors were not healthier. I'm guessing that living in caves and drinking infected river water is also something we evolved for. Not good ideas.
I'm willing to listen to ideas based on current day understanding of biology, not the idealization of "simple" lifestyle of flea-infested knuckle-draggers.

The jury is still out on the "ideal" diet, lifestyle, and music I should integrate into my life for health, longevity and peace of mind. Thankfully.

Hear, hear! This is not the thread to talk about current biology with regards to diet, but if one started I would love to participate. I am, as you may have seen, really good at citing studies. As for the proper music? I know what I like.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

I skimmed over the article and skimmed over a few of the comments on this page. I will not partake in an argument with anyone that agrees or disagrees with my statements. My comments come from MY research and experimenting for myself and witnessing others experiment with what works for them.

Most paleo people I know eat like I do, which is heavy on vegetables, preferably locally grown to the region in which they live. We do partake in other vegetables an fruits grown outside of our regional area, however on occasion (like bananas, pineapple, avocado, coconut, etc)

The focus is also on finding the highest quality protein sources. Grass fed, humanely raised beef, pork and chicken. Eating fish and seafood that is wild caught.

Some of us garden, hunt and gather things in the wild too. I recently learned about wild honeysuckle and its many benefits. I get wild honey suckle and dry it and then use it to make a tea with raw honey for boosting my immune system.

The Paleo lifestyle is merely a *template* for JERF (Just Eat Real Food). Steying away from the packaged, boxed and frozen foods is one of the main goals. You find what works for you as an individual.

There are some People practicing the paleo lifestyle that thrive on extremely high fat, moderate to high protein and lower carbs.

Yet, there are others (like myself) that thrive on higher fat, low to moderate protein and moderatly lower carbs. My plate is generally filled 2/3 - 3/4 vegetables and a smaller amount of protein in the form of meat. Most of my carbs come from vegetables as I no longer eat a lot of fruit to keep my triglycerides under control.

Yet there are others that eat lower fat, moderate protein and a bit higher carbs. I have seen a few Paleo vegetarians also.

So we can not paint this lifestyle with a broad brush like everyone tries to do.

We are all individual.

If you thrive on a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle, GREAT! If you thrive on a lower carb lifestyle, GREAT. If you thrive on a moderate way of eating, GREAT.

I think one thing that we can ALL agree on is that the typical SAD (Standard American Diet) is not healthy for anyone and staying away from the packaged, boxed, and frozen foods is healthier for us.

I think we can all also agree that GMO grains, vegetables and fruits are NOT the way to go either.

bcattoes

I saw this yesterday and it made me think of this post.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121003195122.htm

Early Humans Began Eating Meat Earlier Than Thought: Oldest Known Evidence of Anemia Caused by a Nutritional Deficiency

ScienceDaily (Oct. 3, 2012) — A fragment of a child's skull discovered at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania shows the oldest known evidence of anemia caused by a nutritional deficiency, reports a new paper published Oct. 3 in the open access journal PLOS ONE.

The discovery, made by a global team of researchers led by Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo from Complutense University, Madrid, suggests that early human ancestors began eating meat much earlier in history than previously believed. The skull fragment identified is thought to belong to a child somewhat younger than two and shows bone lesions that commonly result from a lack of B-vitamins in the diet.

warsenic

I think it only counts as Paleo if you go out and kill it with your bare hands.
Plants included.

LilEmm

A friend made an interesting point - cultivated grains were in the diet of all ancient and modern societies that have made incredible leaps in intelligence and ingenuity. There could be a connection.

Seems like "PALEO" was used a marketing tool, to present a particular kind of diet of mostly whole foods, which has been successful for the authors but led to some less than accurate advertising about our ancient diets.

ipag

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.

Here's a brand new study for you, published October 3rd 2012

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0046414


Meat-eating was an important factor affecting early hominin brain expansion, social organization and geographic movement. Stone tool butchery marks on ungulate fossils in several African archaeological assemblages demonstrate a significant level of carnivory by Pleistocene hominins, but the discovery at Olduvai Gorge of a child's pathological cranial fragments indicates that some hominins probably experienced scarcity of animal foods during various stages of their life histories. The child's parietal fragments, excavated from 1.5-million-year-old sediments, show porotic hyperostosis, a pathology associated with anemia. Nutritional deficiencies, including anemia, are most common at weaning, when children lose passive immunity received through their mothers' milk. Our results suggest, alternatively, that (1) the developmentally disruptive potential of weaning reached far beyond sedentary Holocene food-producing societies and into the early Pleistocene, or that (2) a hominin mother's meat-deficient diet negatively altered the nutritional content of her breast milk to the extent that her nursing child ultimately died from malnourishment. Either way, this discovery highlights that by at least 1.5 million years ago early human physiology was already adapted to a diet that included the regular consumption of meat.

Here's a news article based upon that study.

http://www.voanews.com/content/early-humans-meat-8oct12/1522281.html

VegesaurusRex

A friend made an interesting point - cultivated grains were in the diet of all ancient and modern societies that have made incredible leaps in intelligence and ingenuity. There could be a connection.

Seems like "PALEO" was used a marketing tool, to present a particular kind of diet of mostly whole foods, which has been successful for the authors but led to some less than accurate advertising about our ancient diets.

Agree with everything you say. In addition, to being a commercialized fad diet, paleo is also extremely ineffective: Out of 25 diets, it is rated 25th, with approximately 24000 out of approximately 31,000 who tried it saying it did not help them. Check out other diets, like the vegetarian diet:

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?page=3

VegesaurusRex

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.

Here's a brand new study for you, published October 3rd 2012

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0046414


Meat-eating was an important factor affecting early hominin brain expansion, social organization and geographic movement. Stone tool butchery marks on ungulate fossils in several African archaeological assemblages demonstrate a significant level of carnivory by Pleistocene hominins, but the discovery at Olduvai Gorge of a child's pathological cranial fragments indicates that some hominins probably experienced scarcity of animal foods during various stages of their life histories. The child's parietal fragments, excavated from 1.5-million-year-old sediments, show porotic hyperostosis, a pathology associated with anemia. Nutritional deficiencies, including anemia, are most common at weaning, when children lose passive immunity received through their mothers' milk. Our results suggest, alternatively, that (1) the developmentally disruptive potential of weaning reached far beyond sedentary Holocene food-producing societies and into the early Pleistocene, or that (2) a hominin mother's meat-deficient diet negatively altered the nutritional content of her breast milk to the extent that her nursing child ultimately died from malnourishment. Either way, this discovery highlights that by at least 1.5 million years ago early human physiology was already adapted to a diet that included the regular consumption of meat.

Here's a news article based upon that study.

http://www.voanews.com/content/early-humans-meat-8oct12/1522281.html

Thank you for posting that. PLoS ONE ia one of my favorite journals, and I will read the full article.

Meanwhile, understand that from a parietal fragment ( of an Austrolapiticus?) they are speculating on the cause of a 1.5 MY old case of anemia. The theory they are espousing is by no means universally held. Please see:

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/4582.aspx

Also, we just had an argument, above about the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis, which is part and parcel of what the argument on meat being necessary for brain development is, where I cited a Nature article that pretty much calls the ETH into question:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/full/nature10629.html

But I will definitely read the article

VegesaurusRex

Okay, I read the study. It is highly speculative. One could easily disagree with almost all of his conclusions. Particularly in this paragraph, although I do agree with what he says in the last paragraph:

"Further broader relevance of anemia-induced porotic hyperostosis on OH 81 is its support for hypotheses that meat-eating was a fundamental, rather than marginal, aspect of some hominin diets during the early Pleistocene [38], [49]. There is disagreement, but a compelling body of data suggests [50]–[54] that extant chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) might eat meat to compensate for seasonal shortfalls in protein and/or important micronutrients [55]. Despite the possibility that chimpanzees are at least seasonally obligate faunivores, porotic hyperostosis is virtually absent in these apes, our closest living relatives. In contrast, the pathology's relative prevalence in prehistoric hominins seems to indicate that a significant deriviation in hominin metabolic physiology from the ancestral condition occurred sometime after the late Miocene split between the hominin and panin lineages. The presence of anemia-induced porotic hypertostosis on the 1.5 Ma OH 81 hominin parietal, indicates indirectly that by at least the early Pleistocene meat had become so essential to proper hominin functioning that its paucity or lack led to deleterious pathological conditions. Actualistic studies on the ecology of scavenging show that this strategy is feasible only on a seasonal basis in some modern East African savannas and that it provides low flesh yields [56], [57]. A physiology adapted to the consumption of meat on a regular basis, as inferred for the species to which OH81 belonged, is in contradiction with this scenario, since it would not survive acquiring flesh so sporadically. This grants more support to the hypothesis that some hominins were actively engaged in hunting by 1.5 Ma.

Because fossils of very young hominin children are so rare in the early Pleistocene fossil record of East Africa, the occurrence of porotic hyperostosis on one, OH 81, suggests we have only scratched the surface in our understanding of nutrition and health in ancestral populations of the deep past."

PhilyPhresh

I'm exhausted by reading this thread.

It doesn't look like too many "Paleos" have replied

I can easily say I agree and I haven’t replied because I really don’t see a point. I don’t want to attack a veg’s thread just because I disagree with her… but I will say (being a big meat eater) if I had to hunt a deer with nothing other than a sharp rock… yeah… I would probably have to eat a lot more vegetables more often too… but that wouldn't make me love meat any less.

LilEmm

It's so nice to read posts from smart people, analyzing scientific theories. Interesting discussion!

It seems like ancestrally, populations were more diverse than we are today. With so many different kinds of human forefathers and mothers, it will be interesting when we can finally trace our closest relatives. I never knew there were so many species before us. Always thought there was just one particular kind, but that's obviously not the case!

Seems like we're all aware that our personal ancestry plays a role in how our bodies work. People with a specific heritage tend get certain diseases or have particular immunities. (Ex: Western Native Americans being immune to poison oak, prevalence of tay-sachs in Eastern Europeans) It makes sense that our ancient diets were varied and we've evolved to support those diets, but I also wonder if different populations evolved from different species of humans.

_VoV

I'm exhausted by reading this thread.

It doesn't look like too many "Paleos" have replied

I can easily say I agree and I haven’t replied because I really don’t see a point. I don’t want to attack a veg’s thread just because I disagree with her… but I will say (being a big meat eater) if I had to hunt a deer with nothing other than a sharp rock… yeah… I would probably have to eat a lot more vegetables more often too… but that wouldn't make me love meat any less.

Awww....don't be shy. I don't bite! It may surprise you to know that I--like many vegetarians--actually loved the taste of meat. The decision to stop eating it had nothing to do with its deliciousness.

I am interested in good science on the evolution of humans. I can handle reading articles that don't back up my own particular diet. Really.

PhilyPhresh

I'm exhausted by reading this thread.

It doesn't look like too many "Paleos" have replied

I can easily say I agree and I haven’t replied because I really don’t see a point. I don’t want to attack a veg’s thread just because I disagree with her… but I will say (being a big meat eater) if I had to hunt a deer with nothing other than a sharp rock… yeah… I would probably have to eat a lot more vegetables more often too… but that wouldn't make me love meat any less.

Awww....don't be shy. I don't bite! It may surprise you to know that I--like many vegetarians--actually loved the taste of meat. The decision to stop eating it had nothing to do with its deliciousness.

I am interested in good science on the evolution of humans. I can handle reading articles that don't back up my own particular diet. Really.

It's not shyness, it is courtesy, respect, and restraint. Something a lot of people on here apparently lack... But thank you for your encouragement.

caribougal

Yes, and it's interesting that a Vegan started the thread about the Paleo diet. I don't eat vegan, and therefore would never presume to debate any aspect of the vegan lifestyle or rationale for eating vegan. I don't click into any vegan discussions because I have no first-hand experience and no interest.

Every time a discussion comes up about Paleo, or any diet that isn't about "moderation", it gets dissed by many people who have no personal experience with it. I'm willing to bet, though I could be wrong, that the vegans on this thread have never spent any time researching the health benefits of eating Paleo, or tried it themselves. This post is ostensibly to generate a discussion because Paleo is hot right now. There was a proclamation by the OP for innocent intellectual debate about a hot topic. My perception is that this post was meant to continue some tedious discussions from previous threads. Those threads were full of mean snipes, and it's the same people saying the same things on this thread.

Again, today's "Paleo" diet is not a reenactment of early human diet. That would be stupid. And impossible. What paleolithic man ate was the initial impetus for the development of the "Paleo Diet", and certainly Loren Cordain and others have profited from marketing it. Heck, if I could figure a way to quit my job and make money selling cookbooks and getting speaking gigs, I would too. Regardless, I think Paleo/Primal has taken on a life of it's own with so many people finding success with it. It's value has nothing to do with its link to early ancestral eating. It has to do with eating foods that increase, rather than decrease, our health in TODAY's world.

Eating foods that cause inflammation, allergies, and which trigger unhealthy eating habits? Not Paleo.
Eating foods that are full of chemicals to supercharge their flavor, which triggers overeating? Not Paleo.

Think about a bag of Doritos (Spicy Sweet Chili Doritos are VEGAN... YEAH!). Are there any foods in nature that are sweet, spicy, and salty all at the same time? No.

Do you ever feel full eating a huge bag of Doritos? No. Most people can kill a big bag in a matter of minutes, eating without thinking.

Replace Doritos with a nice steak, chicken, salmon, or several cups of veggies or fruits. Each food has it's own flavor, which can be enhanced through combinations, sauces, spices, herbs to achieve a blend of tastes rather than having those tastes chemically engineered to fool you. It's hard to overeat those. It takes longer to eat them, which gives your brain time to register that you might be getting full.

Eating foods that are full of nutrients and close to their natural state? Very Paleo.
Eating foods that are satiating and full of flavor from savory animal protein and fats, preferably grass-fed/pastured/humanely raised and butchered? Very Paleo.
Eating 2-3 cups of cooked or 4-5 cups of raw veggies per meal (a goal I strive for but don't usually achieve)... Very Paleo.

Now... off to make dinner. On the menu... roasted peppers from the CSA stuffed with organic grass-fed beef raised by a local farm and processed by a local butcher, organic zucchini, carrots, shallots, and garlic, with home-made tomato sauce from the CSA tomatoes. Maybe a sprinkle of feta on top (yes, I eat dairy). Who's coming to dinner?

_VoV

Yes, and it's interesting that a Vegan started the thread about the Paleo diet. I don't eat vegan, and therefore would never presume to debate any aspect of the vegan lifestyle or rationale for eating vegan. I don't click into any vegan discussions because I have no first-hand experience and no interest.

Every time a discussion comes up about Paleo, or any diet that isn't about "moderation", it gets dissed by many people who have no personal experience with it. I'm willing to bet, though I could be wrong, that the vegans on this thread have never spent any time researching the health benefits of eating Paleo, or tried it themselves. This post is ostensibly to generate a discussion because Paleo is hot right now. There was a proclamation by the OP for innocent intellectual debate about a hot topic. My perception is that this post was meant to continue some tedious discussions from previous threads. Those threads were full of mean snipes, and it's the same people saying the same things on this thread.

Again, today's "Paleo" diet is not a reenactment of early human diet. That would be stupid. And impossible. What paleolithic man ate was the initial impetus for the development of the "Paleo Diet", and certainly Loren Cordain and others have profited from marketing it. Heck, if I could figure a way to quit my job and make money selling cookbooks and getting speaking gigs, I would too. Regardless, I think Paleo/Primal has taken on a life of it's own with so many people finding success with it. It's value has nothing to do with its link to early ancestral eating. It has to do with eating foods that increase, rather than decrease, our health in TODAY's world.

Eating foods that cause inflammation, allergies, and which trigger unhealthy eating habits? Not Paleo.
Eating foods that are full of chemicals to supercharge their flavor, which triggers overeating? Not Paleo.

Think about a bag of Doritos (Spicy Sweet Chili Doritos are VEGAN... YEAH!). Are there any foods in nature that are sweet, spicy, and salty all at the same time? No.

Do you ever feel full eating a huge bag of Doritos? No. Most people can kill a big bag in a matter of minutes, eating without thinking.

Replace Doritos with a nice steak, chicken, salmon, or several cups of veggies or fruits. Each food has it's own flavor, which can be enhanced through combinations, sauces, spices, herbs to achieve a blend of tastes rather than having those tastes chemically engineered to fool you. It's hard to overeat those. It takes longer to eat them, which gives your brain time to register that you might be getting full.

Eating foods that are full of nutrients and close to their natural state? Very Paleo.
Eating foods that are satiating and full of flavor from savory animal protein and fats, preferably grass-fed/pastured/humanely raised and butchered? Very Paleo.
Eating 2-3 cups of cooked or 4-5 cups of raw veggies per meal (a goal I strive for but don't usually achieve)... Very Paleo.

Now... off to make dinner. On the menu... roasted peppers from the CSA stuffed with organic grass-fed beef raised by a local farm and processed by a local butcher, organic zucchini, carrots, shallots, and garlic, with home-made tomato sauce from the CSA tomatoes. Maybe a sprinkle of feta on top (yes, I eat dairy). Who's coming to dinner?

First of all, let me just say that as a person with some clinical psychology studies under her belt, that most people are naive if they think they can 'psych' out someone's motives. There's something you can do to establish motive: ask directly.

I have read a lot about paleo, and have even tried a vegetarian version of it, but found that eliminating grains and beans made it hard to make my macros. I also try very hard to avoid eggs. So, I was left with fruits, veggies and nuts. Since then I have added back the grain and beans, and I suppose some people would call this 'clean eating.'

I read David Kessler's 'The End of Overeating' that talked about the way foods that combine salt, sugar, fat and refined grains cause versus parts of the brain to fire, stimulating areas which are also triggered by other addictive substances. I know that I have a hard time of 'eating just one' of certain foods like that. I do believe keeping things simple is best, at least for me.

My daughter is an undergraduate studying evolutionary biology. We both have an interest in natural science. Is that reason enough to be interested in ancestral diets, or do I need to confess some Machiavellian reason, as well, in order to pass muster? If you knew me, you would know I'm very much a straight-shooter. For instance, my username and profile could be plain vanilla, and I could come to these forums without tipping my hand about my chosen diet.

Edit: All this reminds me of when I homeschooled my kids, and suddenly no one thought I had any right to express an opinion on our local public schools. Does everyone need a personal stake in something in order to be interested in it?

taylor5877

Yes, and it's interesting that a Vegan started the thread about the Paleo diet. I don't eat vegan, and therefore would never presume to debate any aspect of the vegan lifestyle or rationale for eating vegan. I don't click into any vegan discussions because I have no first-hand experience and no interest.

Every time a discussion comes up about Paleo, or any diet that isn't about "moderation", it gets dissed by many people who have no personal experience with it. I'm willing to bet, though I could be wrong, that the vegans on this thread have never spent any time researching the health benefits of eating Paleo, or tried it themselves. This post is ostensibly to generate a discussion because Paleo is hot right now. There was a proclamation by the OP for innocent intellectual debate about a hot topic. My perception is that this post was meant to continue some tedious discussions from previous threads. Those threads were full of mean snipes, and it's the same people saying the same things on this thread.

Again, today's "Paleo" diet is not a reenactment of early human diet. That would be stupid. And impossible. What paleolithic man ate was the initial impetus for the development of the "Paleo Diet", and certainly Loren Cordain and others have profited from marketing it. Heck, if I could figure a way to quit my job and make money selling cookbooks and getting speaking gigs, I would too. Regardless, I think Paleo/Primal has taken on a life of it's own with so many people finding success with it. It's value has nothing to do with its link to early ancestral eating. It has to do with eating foods that increase, rather than decrease, our health in TODAY's world.

Eating foods that cause inflammation, allergies, and which trigger unhealthy eating habits? Not Paleo.
Eating foods that are full of chemicals to supercharge their flavor, which triggers overeating? Not Paleo.

Think about a bag of Doritos (Spicy Sweet Chili Doritos are VEGAN... YEAH!). Are there any foods in nature that are sweet, spicy, and salty all at the same time? No.

Do you ever feel full eating a huge bag of Doritos? No. Most people can kill a big bag in a matter of minutes, eating without thinking.

Replace Doritos with a nice steak, chicken, salmon, or several cups of veggies or fruits. Each food has it's own flavor, which can be enhanced through combinations, sauces, spices, herbs to achieve a blend of tastes rather than having those tastes chemically engineered to fool you. It's hard to overeat those. It takes longer to eat them, which gives your brain time to register that you might be getting full.

Eating foods that are full of nutrients and close to their natural state? Very Paleo.
Eating foods that are satiating and full of flavor from savory animal protein and fats, preferably grass-fed/pastured/humanely raised and butchered? Very Paleo.
Eating 2-3 cups of cooked or 4-5 cups of raw veggies per meal (a goal I strive for but don't usually achieve)... Very Paleo.

Now... off to make dinner. On the menu... roasted peppers from the CSA stuffed with organic grass-fed beef raised by a local farm and processed by a local butcher, organic zucchini, carrots, shallots, and garlic, with home-made tomato sauce from the CSA tomatoes. Maybe a sprinkle of feta on top (yes, I eat dairy). Who's coming to dinner?

First of all, let me just say that as a person with some clinical psychology studies under her belt, that most people are naive if they think they can 'psych' out someone's motives. There's something you can do to establish motive: ask directly.

I have read a lot about paleo, and have even tried a vegetarian version of it, but found that eliminating grains and beans made it hard to make my macros. I also try very hard to avoid eggs. So, I was left with fruits, veggies and nuts. Since then I have added back the grain and beans, and I suppose some people would call this 'clean eating.'

I read David Kessler's 'The End of Overeating' that talked about the way foods that combine salt, sugar, fat and refined grains cause versus parts of the brain to fire, stimulating areas which are also triggered with other addictive substances. I do believe keeping things simple is best, at least for me.

My daughter is an undergraduate studying evolutionary biology. We both have an interest in natural science. Is that reason enough to be interested in ancestral diets, or do I need some Machiavellian reason as well in order to pass muster?

Both the thread title and article title are subtle potshots at the "Paleo" diet. If you wanted a thread about "what did our ancestors really eat, and therefore what is paleo?" IMO it should have been worded differently. The article title still might cause some contention though.

Taking out any bias and going just on content (and disregarding the opening few paragraphs) I enjoyed reading the article. Thanks for posting in that regard, as it made me read several anthropology articles I otherwise wouldn't have.

caribougal

I agree with the above poster.

And, I also apologize... I did make assumptions about your intentions. When someone named Vegan in their name posts about Paleo diet, it's not generally without an agenda... I also think I mixed up your posts with Vegesaurus Rex after 6 pages of this stuff, and clearly yours are not in the same vein as those posts.

I think I'm just tired of people bashing a diet that has been so helpful to me.

darwinforyou

I was too lazy to read through all of the posts on this....but it reminds me of a lot of the food "movements" going on outside of specific diets. More like Foodies themselves. If anyone watches anything food related on TV Bizarre Foods and whatnot....insects are par for course. I think there are a lot of cultures (outside of the US) that still eat whatever they can find and forage. It's very interesting though - thinking about it.

I also read some mentioning fermented - and that also seems to still have many roots in other countries outside of the US and is actually very good for your digestion. I believe that it was a nordic country that eats fermented shark after it's been sitting forever, eek! But, if it's a food source and there aren't too many options I suppose lots of us would eat things we wouldn't otherwise eat....

I, myself, am willing to try just bout anything.......so bring on the grubs