What is the REAL paleo diet?

_VoV

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.

Thanks. I really meant no harm. The article in Scientific American had a humorous slant, and that can always be misinterpreted, but I thought it made some interesting points. I really didn't see it as bashing paleo. Nor did I see it as an exhaustive treatise on the subject. I do think the pre-agricultural revolution diet was heavy on plant-food, based upon many things I have read, but hungry people eat whatever they can find, and I have no doubt some animal-based food was featured on the menu, too.

I have tried really hard to keep the discussion here rolling, and civil. We had a few skirmishes along the way, but other than that, I enjoyed the entire thread.

Edit: Syntax change for readability.

VegesaurusRex

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?

Not me for sure. Although leave out the beef and the feta and I'd be interested.

You may be interested to know that before the "Paleo Diet" existed, vegans were posting here and getting harassed and criticized by meat eaters who would start threads with "vegan" in the title and then bash us for both the eating style and the ethics. I by the way am a vegan for ethical reasons, not the health benefits. I am actually trying to gain weight (hopefully muscle) and this board attracts me for the workout information, certainly not for information on a fad diet.

I frankly do regard Paleo as a joke, since it is such an obvious scam. You said it correctly when you said Cordain is interested in schlepping books, not in promoting some authentic version of early hominid diet. Early man had a diet that had over 100 grams of fiber per day. How many Paleos achieve that? Lots of Vegans do, however.

Since you consider Paleo helpful (and you are in the small minority of people who tried the diet - see the US News and World Report rating of diets I posted above) how do you rationalize the fact that the philosophy of the diet, the raison d'etre for it, has little relationship with the diet itself. Doesn't that bother you? For me it would be like a group of vegans who were attracted to veganism because of the ethics, but then decided to go out hunting. This is cognitive dissonance at its most absurd. If the philosophy is to eat like a caveman, eat like a caveman, don't eat like a Yuppie. Or at least don't call your diet "Paleo."

Sure Paleolithic man ate meat. When he could get it, which wasn't often. The easiest meat for early humans to catch was insects. That is why the non-vegetable portion of his diet was insects for the most part. Mastodon steaks? If he was lucky, maybe once in his life. Most early hominids were not that lucky, I would guess. Maybe an occasional rat or bird, but certainly not ground beef with every meal.

Why don't you call what you eat the "Yuppie Diet" and forget the term "Paleo." That would be far more honest and accurate.

A thread like this put up by a vegan, and now I am speaking for myself, not her, is pointing out the obvious hypocracy of the Paleo movement. The "Paleo Diet" has nothing whatsoever to do with early paleolithic diets, and the idea that it does is nonsense, it's like believing a marketing scheme. "Four out of five doctors recommend Slurppie Soda for your teeth." Believe that? If you do, I have a bridge I can sell you. But someone may have already sold you a bridge.

My objection to Paleo is not so much the diet itself, as it can be done vegan, but rather the so-called philosophy behind it, i.e., the marketing scheme. It is effective but phony. If people really want a diet that works, they should look at the dietary studies done over the last 50 years. They all pretty much say the same thing: meat eating is correlated with chronic diseases, no one ever got a chronic disease from eating veggies. Period End of Story. This is the boring picky stuff that no one in the Paleo Movement seems to like very much.

So I am happy for you if your diet works, but from what I know about anthropology, your diet has nothing to do with Paleolithic man. I would venture to say that no Paleolithic man who ever existed ever had a meal like you described. Roasted Peppers stuffed with beef, and feta cheese, and organic tomato sauce? What Paleolithic tribe served that? Oh, yeah! Homo yuppius.

Look, I am absolutely not putting down what you are eating, but calling it a caveman diet? Come on, now.

_VoV

A thread like this put up by a vegan, and now I am speaking for myself, not her, is pointing out the obvious hypocracy of the Paleo movement. The "Paleo Diet" has nothing whatsoever to do with early paleolithic diets, and the idea that it does is nonsense, it's like believing a marketing scheme. "Four out of five doctors recommend Slurppie Soda for your teeth." Believe that? If you do, I have a bridge I can sell you. But someone may have already sold you a bridge

I am glad you are speaking for yourself, though again, there's a hint of divining my soul, and that is not something I appreciate.

Many dietary styles seem to come with labels these days: 'Clean eating', 'Paleo', 'Primal Blueprint', 'Vegan', 'Real food', 'Sustainable, locavore' etc, etc. I'm not sure the labels help, and there's considerable overlap, and diverse interpretation of what those labels mean to the people practicing those various diets. Speaking of vegan, for example: some eat whole foods; others eat mostly beige junk foods.

I do think Paleo is on to something, at least the way I interpret it: eating mostly plants, with some lean protein as a side dish. However, I think there are more recent ancestral diets which are great, too, so I don't see the need to go back to caveman times. Many ancient cultures have rich, diverse cuisines which are largely plant-based--the working class in Egypt ate tons of melon, onions, chickpeas, coarse breads, and I'm guessing some fish. Many populations which started farming around 12,000 years ago started eating cultivated plant foods and dairy, and have subsequently made adaptations to eat those foods. So, I would say at least some of us are well prepared to eat grains, beans, and dairy. I won't even get into the science on whether nomadic people's harvested some of these foods prior to the widespread practice of farming, but it's plausible to me.

Then there's the matter of how far to go back to gain some balance in our eating. Ancestral diets can go back to our grandparents' generation, before most boxed and frozen foods were available. I think even that is in improvement over the SAD diet so many people eat in America, and places who emulate it.

From my point of view, 'Paleo' is probably a misnomer since our world is not the same world our neolithic ancestors lived in. The condition of the soil, air, and water is undoubtedly different. Genetically engineered foods are rampant by intention, and non-intention in the case of cross-fertilized fields. Look at chickens--the desire for breast meat has led to breeding which leaves many broiler chickens falling over due to an unnatural center of gravity. Plus, this Scientific American article suggests that insects, not chicken or beef, were the main source of lean protein eaten during those times, and I have no reason to dispute that. Yet all the paleo cookbooks I am familiar with don't have pages, upon pages, of insect recipes.

All this said, I am not trying to encourage anyone to stop doing what they have found successful. Eating at a calorie restriction is hard enough without changing things up even more. And, any diet that focuses on whole fresh foods gets my vote.

bcattoes

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.

I don't understand this section of your post at all. First of all, I can't imagine anyone not being full (stuffed, even) from a huge bag of Drotios. But that aside, why is it bad to eat Doritos because they are vegan and sweet, spicy, and salty all at the same time, but not bad to eat grass fed meat that may have been seasoned to be sweet, spicy and salty at the same time??

Personally, I don't think it's bad to have Doritos now and then, but the reason I beleive it's good to limit them is that they are high sodium, high calorie without providing much nutrition. Not because they are seasoned.

_VoV

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.

I don't understand this section of your post at all. First of all, I can't imagine anyone not being full (stuffed, even) from a huge bag of Drotios. But that aside, why is it bad to eat Doritos because they are vegan and sweet, spicy, and salty all at the same time, but not bad to eat grass fed meat that may have been seasoned to be sweet, spicy and salty at the same time??

Personally, I don't think it's bad to have Doritos now and then, but the reason I beleive it's good to limit them is that they are high sodium, high calorie without providing much nutrition. Not because they are seasoned.

I know you didn't direct this comment to me, but I thought I'd link you to an article which I *think* is what the other poster may be getting at (correction welcome):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/26/AR2009042602711.html

caribougal

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.

I don't understand this section of your post at all. First of all, I can't imagine anyone not being full (stuffed, even) from a huge bag of Drotios. But that aside, why is it bad to eat Doritos because they are vegan and sweet, spicy, and salty all at the same time, but not bad to eat grass fed meat that may have been seasoned to be sweet, spicy and salty at the same time??

Personally, I don't think it's bad to have Doritos now and then, but the reason I beleive it's good to limit them is that they are high sodium, high calorie without providing much nutrition. Not because they are seasoned.

My point was really about processed foods and junk food in general (which often tend to be mostly carbs), with Doritos as an example. I only picked on that one flavor of Dorito as a shout-out to my vegan pals. There is NOTHING IN NATURE that tastes like a Dorito. Or Twinkie. Or Snickers bar. Or McDonald's burger. People LOVE to eat junk food because they are manufactured very carefully to trigger our senses in a specific way. We love sweet, salty, fatty foods. Those taste great to us. So those are the tastes that processed foods try to trigger in us, through the use of things like corn syrup, MSG, oils, soy, sweeteners (artificial or not), coloring, etc. But just because they taste good does not mean they're healthy, especially when they are over-consumed. Yet, those things are often the things we DO tend to over-consume, and it's hard to blame ourselves... they've been engineered to please us. They're cheap to produce, so they're everywhere. But they do not make us healthy, and they generate cravings. And we eat more. And get less healthy.

Eating whole foods is very different. We can achieve a wonderful combination of tastes from nutritious veggies and fruits, herbs and spices, meat and seafood, without all the chemicals and additives. We combine those things and they taste good, and they fill us up, and we tend not to overeat, and they don't create unhealthy urges.

To bring this back to Paleo, the point is that Paleo eliminates processed foods from the diet. The philosophy is that you can either eat foods that make you more healthy, or less healthy. Eating processed foods often makes people less healthy, because they tend to be less nutritious per cal than whole foods, and people tend to overeat them. Eating whole foods (and well-sourced meat is healthy in my book), is more satiating and nourishing, and tends to minimize over-eating.

Many people also really hate the fact that Paleo eliminates so many things. No grains, most legumes, soy, added sugars or artificial sweeteners. There's that ever-present "calories in, calories out" crowd, and "as long as it fits within your macros" crowd. But for me personally, I recognize that those things I eliminated are not only not very nutritious, but they are the very things that I tended to overeat on a SAD diet. I find it much easier to eliminate than to moderate those things. When I try to moderate those foods, eventually they drive up my cravings. If I eliminate them, I don't crave them. I am much more in control of my eating now, rather than my food controlling me.

caribougal

I know you didn't direct this comment to me, but I thought I'd link you to an article which I *think* is what the other poster may be getting at (correction welcome):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/26/AR2009042602711.html

Yes, exactly!!! And much better expressed. This paragraph, about food at Chili's, is exactly what I was trying to say. And that fat that they use for frying is Canola. No thanks!

"The labels showed the foods were bathed in salt, fat and sugars, beyond what a diner might expect by reading the menu, Kessler said. The ingredient list for Southwestern Eggrolls mentioned salt eight different times; sugars showed up five times. The "egg rolls," which are deep-fried in fat, contain chicken that has been chopped up like meatloaf to give it a "melt in the mouth" quality that also makes it faster to eat. By the time a diner has finished this appetizer, she has consumed 910 calories, 57 grams of fat and 1,960 milligrams of sodium.

Instead of satisfying hunger, the salt-fat-sugar combination will stimulate that diner's brain to crave more, Kessler said. For many, the come-on offered by Lay's Potato Chips -- "Betcha can't eat just one" -- is scientifically accurate. And the food industry manipulates this neurological response, designing foods to induce people to eat more than they should or even want, Kessler found."

bcattoes

I know you didn't direct this comment to me, but I thought I'd link you to an article which I *think* is what the other poster may be getting at (correction welcome):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/26/AR2009042602711.html

Yes, exactly!!! And much better expressed. This paragraph, about food at Chili's, is exactly what I was trying to say. And that fat that they use for frying is Canola. No thanks!

"The labels showed the foods were bathed in salt, fat and sugars, beyond what a diner might expect by reading the menu, Kessler said. The ingredient list for Southwestern Eggrolls mentioned salt eight different times; sugars showed up five times. The "egg rolls," which are deep-fried in fat, contain chicken that has been chopped up like meatloaf to give it a "melt in the mouth" quality that also makes it faster to eat. By the time a diner has finished this appetizer, she has consumed 910 calories, 57 grams of fat and 1,960 milligrams of sodium.

Instead of satisfying hunger, the salt-fat-sugar combination will stimulate that diner's brain to crave more, Kessler said. For many, the come-on offered by Lay's Potato Chips -- "Betcha can't eat just one" -- is scientifically accurate. And the food industry manipulates this neurological response, designing foods to induce people to eat more than they should or even want, Kessler found."

Yes, I have read the science behind the flavor enhancers and I'm sure there is some truth to it. Chips are my greatest weakness, though not all chips. I could easily eat just one regular Lay's Potato Chip. But honestly I think a lot of it is learned behavior because taste, to a point, is learned behavior. For years and years I ate fast food as a staple, then when I had children and decided to be healthy I stopped eating it. I don't like it now. I have no problem not overeating on it on the rare occasion that I have it.

I also agree that eating fresh whole natural foods is good, though certainly not limited to a Paleo/Primal Diet. I have no problem with any diet that recommends plenty of whole natural foods. I do believe the advice to give up whole grains and legumes is silly. If someone wants to give them up or must due to allergy/intollerance it's no concern of mine. But there is too much evidence proving these can be part of a heatlhy diet to suggest everyone would be healthier doing so.

caribougal

I do believe the advice to give up whole grains and legumes is silly. If someone wants to give them up or must due to allergy/intollerance it's no concern of mine. But there is too much evidence proving these can be part of a heatlhy diet to suggest everyone would be healthier doing so.

There's also evidence that they aren't terrible healthful. Grains contain lectins, gluten, and phytates. That's why the Paleo diet eliminates them...why eat something that can cause leptin resistance, gluten sensitivity, chronic inflammation, and decreased mineral absorption when you can get the benefits of plenty of fiber from veggies/fruits. I eliminate them because they were part of what I overate. Plus, now that I am gluten-free, I realize that I am, in fact, gluten sensitive, and that I was chronically compensating for it before. And, guess what. A TMI moment for you here... Paleo eliminates beans too. Humans have a hard time digesting beans, which is why we have to soak them for a long time, cook them really well, and we still get bloated with gas and have our large intestine bacteria work their little butts off to digest them for us so we can happily emit gas. I personally don't miss beans at all. It's not like I often thought "Hmmm, you know what I could really go for? Some BEANS!" If I feel like I need more fiber, I eat some veggies.

Since I used the word "evidence", MFP police will say "cite your sources". I'm not a scientist, and I don't even pretend to be one. And, while it's great to cite studies, you can pretty much find a study on anything to support your point, and it sits out of context of the larger ocean of research. But.. here they are, my 30 second searching. I have NOT read these studies. I have no idea if these are the best or most recent. I provide them for everyone else's pleasure, certainly not my own.

Nondigestible Carbohydrates and Mineral Bioavailability
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/129/7/1434S.full

Insulin-Like Activity of Concanavalin A and Wheat Germ Agglutinin—Direct Interactions with Insulin Receptors
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC433288/

Leptin predicts a worsening of the features of the metabolic syndrome independently of obesity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16129731

bcattoes

I do believe the advice to give up whole grains and legumes is silly. If someone wants to give them up or must due to allergy/intollerance it's no concern of mine. But there is too much evidence proving these can be part of a heatlhy diet to suggest everyone would be healthier doing so.

There's also evidence that they aren't terrible healthful. Grains contain lectins, gluten, and phytates. That's why the Paleo diet eliminates them...why eat something that can cause leptin resistance, gluten sensitivity, chronic inflammation, and decreased mineral absorption when you can get the benefits of plenty of fiber from veggies/fruits. I eliminate them because they were part of what I overate. Plus, now that I am gluten-free, I realize that I am, in fact, gluten sensitive, and that I was chronically compensating for it before. And, guess what. A TMI moment for you here... Paleo eliminates beans too. Humans have a hard time digesting beans, which is why we have to soak them for a long time, cook them really well, and we still get bloated with gas and have our large intestine bacteria work their little butts off to digest them for us so we can happily emit gas. I personally don't miss beans at all. It's not like I often thought "Hmmm, you know what I could really go for? Some BEANS!" If I feel like I need more fiber, I eat some veggies.

I don't care about the 3 studies because 3 pieces of a puzzle don't give you a picture. Most humans are not gluten sensitive. I'm sorry that you are, but glad you have corrected it. I realize Paleo eliminates beans. That is just about the most ridiculous part of it IMO. Not eating foods that cause gas would mean eliminating a lot more than beans after all. Legumes are super foods.

VegesaurusRex

To bring this back to Paleo, the point is that Paleo eliminates processed foods from the diet. The philosophy is that you can either eat foods that make you more healthy, or less healthy. Eating processed foods often makes people less healthy, because they tend to be less nutritious per cal than whole foods, and people tend to overeat them. Eating whole foods (and well-sourced meat is healthy in my book), is more satiating and nourishing, and tends to minimize over-eating.

Many people also really hate the fact that Paleo eliminates so many things. No grains, most legumes, soy, added sugars or artificial sweeteners. There's that ever-present "calories in, calories out" crowd, and "as long as it fits within your macros" crowd. But for me personally, I recognize that those things I eliminated are not only not very nutritious, but they are the very things that I tended to overeat on a SAD diet. I find it much easier to eliminate than to moderate those things. When I try to moderate those foods, eventually they drive up my cravings. If I eliminate them, I don't crave them. I am much more in control of my eating now, rather than my food controlling me.


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


What I really love about Paleos is their willingness to make up stuff as they go along and totally ignore real science. This has been the hallmark of Paleo since it first reared its ugly head a few years ago.

First, man has been eating processed grains for at least 100,000 years:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2009/12/17/humans-feasting-on-grains-for-at-least-100000-years/

Second, I have not seen a study that says processed foods, per se make anyone unhealthy. However there are literally HUNDREDS of studies that show that eating meat can cause chronic illness, just one small example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/12/red-meat-death-heart-cancer

Please answer this question: Why do Paleos ignore real science and make stuff up. What you said above actually applies to you:

"Many people also really hate the fact that Paleo eliminates so many things"

What you hate is that the things you like are shown to be harmful. Meat eaters just will not give up their addition, which by the way is fine by me, just so long as we don't get some nonsense like Obamacare where I have to pay for your bypass operation or chemotherapy.

flirzhja

Bump

martymum

This is intended tongue in cheek.......

Can I throw in the mix that the cavemen and neanderthals rarely lived beyond the age of 30...so their diet wasn't all that good!!


martyxx:flowerforyou:

VegesaurusRex

This is intended tongue in cheek.......

Can I throw in the mix that the cavemen and neanderthals rarely lived beyond the age of 30...so their diet wasn't all that good!!


martyxx:flowerforyou:

You may have meant it as tongue and cheek, but it is actually a good point. Really, no one knows WHAT the caveman diet really was, other than some characteristics like extremely high fiber (100g per day) and on top of that, no one really knows how GOOD the diet was since most of them did not live to be 40.

VegesaurusRex

Nondigestible Carbohydrates and Mineral Bioavailability
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/129/7/1434S.full

Insulin-Like Activity of Concanavalin A and Wheat Germ Agglutinin—Direct Interactions with Insulin Receptors
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC433288/

Leptin predicts a worsening of the features of the metabolic syndrome independently of obesity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16129731


I read one of these three studies("insulin like activity.....") , and the authors refused to speculate as to what the study means. Perhaps you could tell me what you think it means and why?

deanna_bond

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet

deanna_bond

This is intended tongue in cheek.......

Can I throw in the mix that the cavemen and neanderthals rarely lived beyond the age of 30...so their diet wasn't all that good!!


martyxx:flowerforyou:

You may have meant it as tongue and cheek, but it is actually a good point. Really, no one knows WHAT the caveman diet really was, other than some characteristics like extremely high fiber (100g per day) and on top of that, no one really knows how GOOD the diet was since most of them did not live to be 40.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet ThaT WHAT THIS ARTICLE says . exactly shorter life span and what not. This article has the history and everything else. I hate fish so it wouldnt work for me

_VoV

I think the paleo diet has a romantic appeal. It conjures up the image of rugged people free of the 9-to-5 corporate thing, and surviving by their wits in nature.

Over the years I have tried diets which appeal to my sense of wanting to reinvent myself in a huge way, and not just eat less. My latest, albeit several years ago was the French Women Don't Get Fat diet. I could visualize this diet culminating in me actually turning into a fashionable, trim French woman, drinking my soy latte at an outdoor cafe overlooking the eiffel tower. Earlier there was the aruvedic diet (yes I'm a kapha--go figure), where I could see my slim self in a sari, dancing around with bells on my ankles. (Where did the sudden coordination come from?) Then there was the Zen diet....well, you get my point.

I know that calorie restriction is hard. Restricting food groups, or substituting new foods for familiar ones which come with emotional baggage and personal history can help some people. I doubt any of these diets which promote a framework for eating that beckons to a different place and/or time are authentic. But, I get it.

My vegetarianism is altogether different. I do it because it dovetails with a deep-felt philosophy I hold with respect to animals in relationship to man. I never waver because it isn't a 'diet' to me. Whether it's trendy, optimally nutritious, or the most flavorful way to eat at the moment doesn't factor into my reasons for doing it. Other people might experience imagery related to the vegetarian way of life, but I don't.

bcattoes

This is intended tongue in cheek.......

Can I throw in the mix that the cavemen and neanderthals rarely lived beyond the age of 30...so their diet wasn't all that good!!


martyxx:flowerforyou:

Yes. But, did they die of something that diet could have prevented? Or did they die of an infection that today is easily treatable, or by being trapped under a rock or tree in a time before equipment to move heavy objects existed. Were they killed by an animal or a rival human? Did they freeze or die of heat exhaustion or drown or other weather related calamaties? More than just diet has changed since that time after all.

beckajw

This is intended tongue in cheek.......

Can I throw in the mix that the cavemen and neanderthals rarely lived beyond the age of 30...so their diet wasn't all that good!!


martyxx:flowerforyou:

Yes. But, did they die of something that diet could have prevented? Or did they die of an infection that today is easily treatable, or by being trapped under a rock or tree in a time before equipment to move heavy objects existed. Were they killed by an animal or a rival human? Did they freeze or die of heat exhaustion or drown or other weather related calamaties? More than just diet has changed since that time after all.

Diet cannot prevent death.

_VoV

This is intended tongue in cheek.......

Can I throw in the mix that the cavemen and neanderthals rarely lived beyond the age of 30...so their diet wasn't all that good!!


martyxx:flowerforyou:

Yes. But, did they die of something that diet could have prevented? Or did they die of an infection that today is easily treatable, or by being trapped under a rock or tree in a time before equipment to move heavy objects existed. Were they killed by an animal or a rival human? Did they freeze or die of heat exhaustion or drown or other weather related calamaties? More than just diet has changed since that time after all.

Exactly. Nature is cruel. It's almost impossible to know whether this diet would have contributed to human longevity in these much earlier times. And, unless there's a sizable number of contemporary elderly people who have been eating this way for their entire lives, we can't truly know the longitudinal effects.

_VoV

This is intended tongue in cheek.......

Can I throw in the mix that the cavemen and neanderthals rarely lived beyond the age of 30...so their diet wasn't all that good!!


martyxx:flowerforyou:

Yes. But, did they die of something that diet could have prevented? Or did they die of an infection that today is easily treatable, or by being trapped under a rock or tree in a time before equipment to move heavy objects existed. Were they killed by an animal or a rival human? Did they freeze or die of heat exhaustion or drown or other weather related calamaties? More than just diet has changed since that time after all.

Diet cannot prevent death.

True, but I'm much more concerned with not being a burden on my family while I'm still alive. So, avoiding some of the diseases of Western excess appeals to me, even if I don't survive beyond an average age.

VegesaurusRex

This is intended tongue in cheek.......

Can I throw in the mix that the cavemen and neanderthals rarely lived beyond the age of 30...so their diet wasn't all that good!!


martyxx:flowerforyou:

Yes. But, did they die of something that diet could have prevented? Or did they die of an infection that today is easily treatable, or by being trapped under a rock or tree in a time before equipment to move heavy objects existed. Were they killed by an animal or a rival human? Did they freeze or die of heat exhaustion or drown or other weather related calamaties? More than just diet has changed since that time after all.

Of course. But nonetheless, they died. When they died at 40, there is no way to know how healthy they would have been at 80.

VegesaurusRex

This is intended tongue in cheek.......

Can I throw in the mix that the cavemen and neanderthals rarely lived beyond the age of 30...so their diet wasn't all that good!!


martyxx:flowerforyou:

Yes. But, did they die of something that diet could have prevented? Or did they die of an infection that today is easily treatable, or by being trapped under a rock or tree in a time before equipment to move heavy objects existed. Were they killed by an animal or a rival human? Did they freeze or die of heat exhaustion or drown or other weather related calamaties? More than just diet has changed since that time after all.

Diet cannot prevent death.

It can postpone it.

bcattoes

This is intended tongue in cheek.......

Can I throw in the mix that the cavemen and neanderthals rarely lived beyond the age of 30...so their diet wasn't all that good!!


martyxx:flowerforyou:

Yes. But, did they die of something that diet could have prevented? Or did they die of an infection that today is easily treatable, or by being trapped under a rock or tree in a time before equipment to move heavy objects existed. Were they killed by an animal or a rival human? Did they freeze or die of heat exhaustion or drown or other weather related calamaties? More than just diet has changed since that time after all.

Diet cannot prevent death.

I never suggested it could. But it can prevent diseases that cause early death.

_VoV

This is intended tongue in cheek.......

Can I throw in the mix that the cavemen and neanderthals rarely lived beyond the age of 30...so their diet wasn't all that good!!


martyxx:flowerforyou:

Yes. But, did they die of something that diet could have prevented? Or did they die of an infection that today is easily treatable, or by being trapped under a rock or tree in a time before equipment to move heavy objects existed. Were they killed by an animal or a rival human? Did they freeze or die of heat exhaustion or drown or other weather related calamaties? More than just diet has changed since that time after all.

Diet cannot prevent death.

I never suggested it could. But it can prevent diseases that cause early death.

Yes, it can effect how we live, even if it doesn't prolong life. That counts for a lot, at least to me.