What is the REAL paleo diet?

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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

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