Hunter-gatherers vs Westerners

I am the first to admit that background and academic credentials are certainly not everything, and many interesting discoveries and contributions have been made by "outsiders" or newcomers in various fields.

from your link, and from Dr. Campbell

I am the first to admit that background and academic credentials are certainly not everything, and many interesting discoveries and contributions have been made by "outsiders" or newcomers in various fields.

I still haven't.

He was being polite.

Are you exercising as much as they do?

I do believe exercise can control weight, and I am somewhat suspicious about this study because the results are counter intuitive (doesn't make them wrong, of course.)

I do not give any credence at all to the "Paleo" diet, but it stands to reason that a farmer who works all day in the field burns more calories than a typical sedentary American.

You give no credence to the "paleo" diet (love the talking marks, makes me thing you're talking about someone's dirty socks...)? Interesting. Now I'll bet if I said I give no credence to the "vegetarian" diet you'd have something to say about that eh? Not that I do. My daughter is a staunch vegetarian in a paleo/primal family and if we're talking about hunter/gatherer's then there it is. Just what is it about my 'no grains/refined sugar/processed foods/limited dairy' diet that lacks credence?

I give no credence to the Paleo diet for a number of reasons:

1. Nobody knows what that diet really was. We have only a few spotty indications of what paleolithic man ate, and most Paleo references to sources for their diet that I have seen refer only to Ortzi, who was actually a NEOlithic human. Since he was frozen in a glacier, the contents of his stomach were also frozen. Most of the time at Paleolithc sites, antrhopologists have to examine what remains at the site to try to ascertain what the diet was.. These could be seeds, bones or even poop. Diet obviously varried from site to site, depending upon what was available. From what I know there was no "Paleolithic Diet" as such, just some meager information about what the diet may have been in a few places.

2. Even if one knew what the Paleolithic Diet was, it probably could not be reproduced exactly, since both the plants and the animals may have been genetically different from what they were today. And most likely a large part of the Paleolitic diet may have been scavenging kills from sabre tooth tigers, and other carnivores, or eating plants that are genetically different from what we eat today.

3. Since paleolithic man spent a large part of his waking life avoiding danger and trying to find food, I doubt you can compare his lifestyle with modern man. Lifestyle may have been a big part of the "success" of that diet.

4. Most evidence indicates that the Paleolithic diet was not a success. Paleolithic man lived to be 35 - 40, and so never lived long enough to demonstrate that he had any advantage regarding the diseases of old age (cancer and heart disease) over us, since he died before these diseases normally present.

5. The few studies I have seen on those attempting a Paleo diet indicate it is either neutral or harmful.

6. There are obviously better choices. No study I have ever read indicates that any chronic disease is associated with vegetarian diets, for example.

Thus my reasons for dismissing the Paleo diet are 1. no one knows what it really was, 2. even if we did we could not reproduce it, 3. it was the diet of a specific lifestyle which no longer exists, 4. there is no evidence that the paleolithic diet, which was a diet of necessity is any better than any other diet, 5. there is evidence that it is worse than other diets, and 6 there are a lot of studies which demonstrate fairly conclusively that diets with no meat are better for those who wish to live longer lives than diets with meat.

I'm living in Tanzania right now, and what amazed me at first is how my neighbors stay fit given their diets. Lots of carbs, lots of fried foods... granted, many are farmers and do get a lot of exercise, but their portion sizes are huge!!! I'm always getting comments about how little I eat, and yet, I've gained weight on a Tanzanian diet, despite exercise. It's hard to account for the difference, unless we consider my previous eating habits (what my body is used to) and ancestry/genetics.

That's really interesting! So, maybe the hunter-gatherers were underreporting their food intake. Another sad study comes to mind though, and that's the one from earlier this year that said that people who lose weight burn fewer calories than people who are the same weight, but have always been that weight.

Are you exercising as much as they do?

I do believe exercise can control weight, and I am somewhat suspicious about this study because the results are counter intuitive (doesn't make them wrong, of course.)

I do not give any credence at all to the "Paleo" diet, but it stands to reason that a farmer who works all day in the field burns more calories than a typical sedentary American.

You give no credence to the "paleo" diet (love the talking marks, makes me thing you're talking about someone's dirty socks...)? Interesting. Now I'll bet if I said I give no credence to the "vegetarian" diet you'd have something to say about that eh? Not that I do. My daughter is a staunch vegetarian in a paleo/primal family and if we're talking about hunter/gatherer's then there it is. Just what is it about my 'no grains/refined sugar/processed foods/limited dairy' diet that lacks credence?

I give no credence to the Paleo diet for a number of reasons:

1. Nobody knows what that diet really was. We have only a few spotty indications of what paleolithic man ate, and most Paleo references to sources for their diet that I have seen refer only to Ortzi, who was actually a NEOlithic human. Since he was frozen in a glacier, the contents of his stomach were also frozen. Most of the time at Paleolithc sites, antrhopologists have to examine what remains at the site to try to ascertain what the diet was.. These could be seeds, bones or even poop. Diet obviously varried from site to site, depending upon what was available. From what I know there was no "Paleolithic Diet" as such, just some meager information about what the diet may have been in a few places.

2. Even if one knew what the Paleolithic Diet was, it probably could not be reproduced exactly, since both the plants and the animals may have been genetically different from what they were today. And most likely a large part of the Paleolitic diet may have been scavenging kills from sabre tooth tigers, and other carnivores, or eating plants that are genetically different from what we eat today.

3. Since paleolithic man spent a large part of his waking life avoiding danger and trying to find food, I doubt you can compare his lifestyle with modern man. Lifestyle may have been a big part of the "success" of that diet.

4. Most evidence indicates that the Paleolithic diet was not a success. Paleolithic man lived to be 35 - 40, and so never lived long enough to demonstrate that he had any advantage regarding the diseases of old age (cancer and heart disease) over us, since he died before these diseases normally present.

5. The few studies I have seen on those attempting a Paleo diet indicate it is either neutral or harmful.

6. There are obviously better choices. No study I have ever read indicates that any chronic disease is associated with vegetarian diets, for example.

Thus my reasons for dismissing the Paleo diet are 1. no one knows what it really was, 2. even if we did we could not reproduce it, 3. it was the diet of a specific lifestyle which no longer exists, 4. there is no evidence that the paleolithic diet, which was a diet of necessity is any better than any other diet, 5. there is evidence that it is worse than other diets, and 6 there are a lot of studies which demonstrate fairly conclusively that diets with no meat are better for those who wish to live longer lives than diets with meat.

Are you exercising as much as they do?

I do believe exercise can control weight, and I am somewhat suspicious about this study because the results are counter intuitive (doesn't make them wrong, of course.)

I do not give any credence at all to the "Paleo" diet, but it stands to reason that a farmer who works all day in the field burns more calories than a typical sedentary American.

You give no credence to the "paleo" diet (love the talking marks, makes me thing you're talking about someone's dirty socks...)? Interesting. Now I'll bet if I said I give no credence to the "vegetarian" diet you'd have something to say about that eh? Not that I do. My daughter is a staunch vegetarian in a paleo/primal family and if we're talking about hunter/gatherer's then there it is. Just what is it about my 'no grains/refined sugar/processed foods/limited dairy' diet that lacks credence?

I give no credence to the Paleo diet for a number of reasons:

1. Nobody knows what that diet really was. We have only a few spotty indications of what paleolithic man ate, and most Paleo references to sources for their diet that I have seen refer only to Ortzi, who was actually a NEOlithic human. Since he was frozen in a glacier, the contents of his stomach were also frozen. Most of the time at Paleolithc sites, antrhopologists have to examine what remains at the site to try to ascertain what the diet was.. These could be seeds, bones or even poop. Diet obviously varried from site to site, depending upon what was available. From what I know there was no "Paleolithic Diet" as such, just some meager information about what the diet may have been in a few places.

2. Even if one knew what the Paleolithic Diet was, it probably could not be reproduced exactly, since both the plants and the animals may have been genetically different from what they were today. And most likely a large part of the Paleolitic diet may have been scavenging kills from sabre tooth tigers, and other carnivores, or eating plants that are genetically different from what we eat today.

3. Since paleolithic man spent a large part of his waking life avoiding danger and trying to find food, I doubt you can compare his lifestyle with modern man. Lifestyle may have been a big part of the "success" of that diet.

4. Most evidence indicates that the Paleolithic diet was not a success. Paleolithic man lived to be 35 - 40, and so never lived long enough to demonstrate that he had any advantage regarding the diseases of old age (cancer and heart disease) over us, since he died before these diseases normally present.

5. The few studies I have seen on those attempting a Paleo diet indicate it is either neutral or harmful.

6. There are obviously better choices. No study I have ever read indicates that any chronic disease is associated with vegetarian diets, for example.

Thus my reasons for dismissing the Paleo diet are 1. no one knows what it really was, 2. even if we did we could not reproduce it, 3. it was the diet of a specific lifestyle which no longer exists, 4. there is no evidence that the paleolithic diet, which was a diet of necessity is any better than any other diet, 5. there is evidence that it is worse than other diets, and 6 there are a lot of studies which demonstrate fairly conclusively that diets with no meat are better for those who wish to live longer lives than diets with meat.

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

As a hunter, I can tell you that a lot of it is sitting and waiting for the animal. Sure, there is walking from stand to stand, or trailing a deer but for the most part it's a waiting game-at least for my dad and me it is.

You have never turkey hunted have you? Last time I went I think I clocked about 25 miles of walking per day looking for a good Tom.

I still haven't.

Normally I ignore request by the lazy, but if you would actually look at the links I provided, and look at the internal links in those you would see them.

Alright give me one.

I still haven't.

Normally I ignore request by the lazy, but if you would actually look at the links I provided, and look at the internal links in those you would see them.

Alright give me one.

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

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

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