Paleo Eating

Witchetty grub anyone?

The Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.

The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.

I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.

I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.

Palaeolithic Homo sapiens had the same lifespan as modern humans. Neanderthals (a different species of human, Homo neanderthalensis) had shorter lifespans, and Homo erectus (an earlier species) had even shorter lifespans. Nothing to do with their diet - we evolved to have longer childhoods and longer lifespans to be able to learn and pass on a more complex culture. Modern hunter-gatherers frequently live into their 80s. They have a lower average age of death due to higher infant and child mortality skewing the average. It's a similar pattern with palaeolithic Homo sapiens. Earlier species had shorter lifespans due to genetics and not having yet evolved the longer lifespan of modern humans. Many still lived to be elderly though, i.e. living through all their natural lifespan.

That said, the diet calling itself "paleo" on the internet bears no resemblance to any actual palaeolithic diets. Neanderthals ate bison, reindeer, wild horses, wild donkeys, woolly rhino and woolly mammoths. They also ate root vegetables and various other plant foods which would have included nuts, berries, edible fungus and other edible plant foods, which would have included whatever wild grains and pulses that grew where they happened to live. And they would probably have eaten various edible insects and insect larvae. Modern hunter-gatherers eat a similar diet, albeit minus any species that are now extinct. Yes, including insects and insect larvae.

Witchetty grub anyone?

10/10 would deep-fry and eat

Worded beautifully. I would like to see proof of people from 10,000 years ago having the same lifespan as people now though, especially considering people even 200 years ago didn't have the same lifespan.

Works for me. I'm down to 5.5%BF and getting ready for my first BB comp. I've never felt (or all humbleness aside) looked better.

Also for what it's worth, I've been cutting since Nov...so you cover that grub with choc and yea, I'd eat it.

The Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.

The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.

I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.

I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.

Palaeolithic Homo sapiens had the same lifespan as modern humans. Neanderthals (a different species of human, Homo neanderthalensis) had shorter lifespans, and Homo erectus (an earlier species) had even shorter lifespans. Nothing to do with their diet - we evolved to have longer childhoods and longer lifespans to be able to learn and pass on a more complex culture. Modern hunter-gatherers frequently live into their 80s. They have a lower average age of death due to higher infant and child mortality skewing the average. It's a similar pattern with palaeolithic Homo sapiens. Earlier species had shorter lifespans due to genetics and not having yet evolved the longer lifespan of modern humans. Many still lived to be elderly though, i.e. living through all their natural lifespan.

That said, the diet calling itself "paleo" on the internet bears no resemblance to any actual palaeolithic diets. Neanderthals ate bison, reindeer, wild horses, wild donkeys, woolly rhino and woolly mammoths. They also ate root vegetables and various other plant foods which would have included nuts, berries, edible fungus and other edible plant foods, which would have included whatever wild grains and pulses that grew where they happened to live. And they would probably have eaten various edible insects and insect larvae. Modern hunter-gatherers eat a similar diet, albeit minus any species that are now extinct. Yes, including insects and insect larvae.

Witchetty grub anyone?

10/10 would deep-fry and eat

Worded beautifully. I would like to see proof of people from 10,000 years ago having the same lifespan as people now though, especially considering people even 200 years ago didn't have the same lifespan.

It's the "average age of death" vs. "lifespan".

So, if you can find multiple remains that suggest people lived into their 80s/90s, then they probably had a similar lifespan, even if more of them died earlier.

The Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.

The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.

I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.

I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.

Palaeolithic Homo sapiens had the same lifespan as modern humans. Neanderthals (a different species of human, Homo neanderthalensis) had shorter lifespans, and Homo erectus (an earlier species) had even shorter lifespans. Nothing to do with their diet - we evolved to have longer childhoods and longer lifespans to be able to learn and pass on a more complex culture. Modern hunter-gatherers frequently live into their 80s. They have a lower average age of death due to higher infant and child mortality skewing the average. It's a similar pattern with palaeolithic Homo sapiens. Earlier species had shorter lifespans due to genetics and not having yet evolved the longer lifespan of modern humans. Many still lived to be elderly though, i.e. living through all their natural lifespan.

That said, the diet calling itself "paleo" on the internet bears no resemblance to any actual palaeolithic diets. Neanderthals ate bison, reindeer, wild horses, wild donkeys, woolly rhino and woolly mammoths. They also ate root vegetables and various other plant foods which would have included nuts, berries, edible fungus and other edible plant foods, which would have included whatever wild grains and pulses that grew where they happened to live. And they would probably have eaten various edible insects and insect larvae. Modern hunter-gatherers eat a similar diet, albeit minus any species that are now extinct. Yes, including insects and insect larvae.

Witchetty grub anyone?

10/10 would deep-fry and eat

Worded beautifully. I would like to see proof of people from 10,000 years ago having the same lifespan as people now though, especially considering people even 200 years ago didn't have the same lifespan.

It's the "average age of death" vs. "lifespan".

So, if you can find multiple remains that suggest people lived into their 80s/90s, then they probably had a similar lifespan, even if more of them died earlier.

I really need to learn to be much more concise in my explanations because this is exactly what I meant.

Natural lifespan of someone who lived a healthy life and didn't get killed hunting =/= average age of death... average age of death can be a very misleading statistic. If you have a society (which is typical in hunter-gatherer tribes) where you get fairly high mortality before age 5 but most people who make it to middle childhood living into their 70s or 80s, the average age of death is about 45. but it's rare for someone in those societies to actually die at age 45 because it's an average of all the young kids and elderly people dying, not the age people typically die at. This is a good example of where average is not the best statistic to use.

No, you missed the point of the analogy. Comparing the reason for the lifespan differences between now and then as coming down to just diet (rather than basic sanitation, modern medicine, antibiotics, mortality due to accidents, etc.) is like comparing apples to gorillas. It makes little sense.

No, you missed the point of the analogy. Comparing the reason for the lifespan differences between now and then as coming down to just diet (rather than basic sanitation, modern medicine, antibiotics, mortality due to accidents, etc.) is like comparing apples to gorillas. It makes little sense.

Except I never said that. You brought up the modern stuff. I was keeping to the original point. There are tons of reasons for the lifespan differences, I agree. But you must also agree the human body cannot possibly be the same as it was back then. In just the 1600's people were on average one foot shorter. What other changes have we gone through in the past 10,000 years to give need to a different diet to what they ate in the paleo era - this is the point I was making - people change and so do their diets.

Maybe I'm just off point because I'm taking the name of the fad diet too literally. We're not cavemen. But the name of the diet implies we should try to be. This probably should have been my response to you saying apples and gorillas. I do see your point. It makes little sense to compare. But my poorly worded point is that if things have changed so much why do people attribute any degree of importance to the diet (again, I totally do get not eating "plastic food" as I put it - Cheese Whiz, margerine, etc.).

No, you missed the point of the analogy. Comparing the reason for the lifespan differences between now and then as coming down to just diet (rather than basic sanitation, modern medicine, antibiotics, mortality due to accidents, etc.) is like comparing apples to gorillas. It makes little sense.

Yeah but honestly people only make that argument because it is the direct counter argument of why people choose to eat Paleo. People choose that because they think that's it's healthy. Because it's what we where "meant" to have. But fact is we weren't meant to have modern medicine. We weren't meant to have good sanitation. At least our bodies where not. Looking to our caveman days as an example of how to build a healthy diet and lifestyle because it's what we were "meant" to do is itself ridiculous. Because while there is a reason to avoid living on processed or junk food. There is absolutely ZERO reason to adopt the restrictions a true paleo diet would have you adopt.

No, you missed the point of the analogy. Comparing the reason for the lifespan differences between now and then as coming down to just diet (rather than basic sanitation, modern medicine, antibiotics, mortality due to accidents, etc.) is like comparing apples to gorillas. It makes little sense.

Except I never said that. You brought up the modern stuff. I was keeping to the original point. There are tons of reasons for the lifespan differences, I agree. But you must also agree the human body cannot possibly be the same as it was back then. In just the 1600's people were on average one foot shorter. What other changes have we gone through in the past 10,000 years to give need to a different diet to what they ate in the paleo era - this is the point I was making - people change and so do their diets.

Maybe I'm just off point because I'm taking the name of the fad diet too literally. We're not cavemen. But the name of the diet implies we should try to be. This probably should have been my response to you saying apples and gorillas. I do see your point. It makes little sense to compare. But my poorly worded point is that if things have changed so much why do people attribute any degree of importance to the diet (again, I totally do get not eating "plastic food" as I put it - Cheese Whiz, margerine, etc.).

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I'm with Neandermagnon on this -- that there is actually very little biologically different in mankind now and then.

No, you missed the point of the analogy. Comparing the reason for the lifespan differences between now and then as coming down to just diet (rather than basic sanitation, modern medicine, antibiotics, mortality due to accidents, etc.) is like comparing apples to gorillas. It makes little sense.

Except I never said that. You brought up the modern stuff. I was keeping to the original point. There are tons of reasons for the lifespan differences, I agree. But you must also agree the human body cannot possibly be the same as it was back then. In just the 1600's people were on average one foot shorter. What other changes have we gone through in the past 10,000 years to give need to a different diet to what they ate in the paleo era - this is the point I was making - people change and so do their diets.

Maybe I'm just off point because I'm taking the name of the fad diet too literally. We're not cavemen. But the name of the diet implies we should try to be. This probably should have been my response to you saying apples and gorillas. I do see your point. It makes little sense to compare. But my poorly worded point is that if things have changed so much why do people attribute any degree of importance to the diet (again, I totally do get not eating "plastic food" as I put it - Cheese Whiz, margerine, etc.).

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I'm with Neandermagnon on this -- that there is actually very little biologically different in mankind now and then.

And I would just like to point out that homo habilis still existed in the paleolithic era. The paleolithic era covers thousands upon thousands of years. We are not genetically the same as a homo habilis.

Neandermagnon -- I know you're a wealth of information on Paleolithic man. Do you have any information on the differences in the foods we eat today relative to those we ate then?

I wonder because I've been reading a lot on the differences in some modern variations of fruits and vegetables (and grains for that matter) and how many of our modern variants have a lot less of many nutritional items -- like far less antioxidants in modern blueberries found at most stores and those wild varieties from just a few hundred years ago. I've read a good deal about the changes in grain too, especially since the 80s -- so that even our modern bread doesn't offer nearly the nutritional profile it did in our grandparents' time.

Just wondering if you could speak to that as well.

the most interesting thing is that people who are descended from dairy farming/herding populations have evolved the ability to digest lactose as adults. This has happened separately in Europeans and the Masai people of Africa (i.e. different mutations happened separately in these populations) - so people have adapted over time to dietary differences that have resulted from post-neolithic culture......... I think the general principle that the paleo diet is based on - that we're adapted to the diets of our ancestors - is good, but it would be more logical to go back to the diet of our ancestors from around 500 years ago. I feel very healthy on a diet of meat, dairy and grains, but I'm descended from people who farmed those things so it shouldn't be surprising.

Also, don't underestimate the adaptability of humans. We're dietary generalists - adapted to be able to adapt our culture to suit new environments which means new diets. Modern breeds of food are different, they're bred to be bigger, sweeter, etc... animals too... farmed animals have very different macros to wild animals, because they've been bred to be docile and fatter. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be eaten - just that we have to be careful not to eat excessive amounts of fat or carbohydrate.

As for wild foods - the wild berries I've picked since returning to the UK taste much better than the frozen ones I bought in Bahrain. Which cost 3 dinars (which is a lot as dinars are worth more than pounds) for the amount that I gathered in about 30 mins, that was including the time I spent supervising the kids and avoiding getting stung by stinging nettles. I think the quality of soil is an issue - wild foods and home grown foods and any small scale farming, the quality of soil is probably better... farming leads to soils becoming depleted of nutrients, and natural fertilisers (like manure) are better at replacing these. But we can't feed the whole world on small scale farming any more, and it's not that modern varieties of food are dangerous or that much lower in nutrients... people can still get a balanced diet and I don't see any need to be puritanical about food.

Neandermagnon -- I know you're a wealth of information on Paleolithic man. Do you have any information on the differences in the foods we eat today relative to those we ate then?

I wonder because I've been reading a lot on the differences in some modern variations of fruits and vegetables (and grains for that matter) and how many of our modern variants have a lot less of many nutritional items -- like far less antioxidants in modern blueberries found at most stores and those wild varieties from just a few hundred years ago. I've read a good deal about the changes in grain too, especially since the 80s -- so that even our modern bread doesn't offer nearly the nutritional profile it did in our grandparents' time.

Just wondering if you could speak to that as well.

the most interesting thing is that people who are descended from dairy farming/herding populations have evolved the ability to digest lactose as adults. This has happened separately in Europeans and the Masai people of Africa (i.e. different mutations happened separately in these populations) - so people have adapted over time to dietary differences that have resulted from post-neolithic culture......... I think the general principle that the paleo diet is based on - that we're adapted to the diets of our ancestors - is good, but it would be more logical to go back to the diet of our ancestors from around 500 years ago. I feel very healthy on a diet of meat, dairy and grains, but I'm descended from people who farmed those things so it shouldn't be surprising.

Also, don't underestimate the adaptability of humans. We're dietary generalists - adapted to be able to adapt our culture to suit new environments which means new diets. Modern breeds of food are different, they're bred to be bigger, sweeter, etc... animals too... farmed animals have very different macros to wild animals, because they've been bred to be docile and fatter. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be eaten - just that we have to be careful not to eat excessive amounts of fat or carbohydrate.

As for wild foods - the wild berries I've picked since returning to the UK taste much better than the frozen ones I bought in Bahrain. Which cost 3 dinars (which is a lot as dinars are worth more than pounds) for the amount that I gathered in about 30 mins, that was including the time I spent supervising the kids and avoiding getting stung by stinging nettles. I think the quality of soil is an issue - wild foods and home grown foods and any small scale farming, the quality of soil is probably better... farming leads to soils becoming depleted of nutrients, and natural fertilisers (like manure) are better at replacing these. But we can't feed the whole world on small scale farming any more, and it's not that modern varieties of food are dangerous or that much lower in nutrients... people can still get a balanced diet and I don't see any need to be puritanical about food.

I think you might be surprised at some of the differences in many fruits and vegetables with even those a few hundred years ago? For example, this is a good book (or at least appears to be): http://www.amazon.com/Eating-Wild-Side-Missing-Optimum/dp/0316227943

I realize that many modern variants were chosen for their high yield potential. But to pretend that there wasn't a trade-off in nutrient profile for at least some of them seems to be contrary to some facts.

I wouldn't go as far to say that modern variants are dangerous, but I do think we have lost the nutrient profile for many fruits and vegetables over the years in favor of higher yield and greater palatability (usually high sugar -- which makes sense on multiple levels, but not good in a modern landscape where scarcity of food isn't an issue).

I do agree that I think a lot of it is marketing, not a statement about archaeology, anthropology, etc.. However, there is at least a theory in biological evolution -- that we were adapted to those foods back then better than we do to certain things more prevalent in the modern diet. For example, difficulty many have with grains, gluten and/or dairy or the apparent increase in autoimmune diseases and insulin resistance in recent times are two hypothesized results of such dissonance. I'm not saying it's correct, but that is the loose theory (in laymen terms, not as used by scientists). And those are all very good reasons for eating some version of the Paleo diet -- as many do find to be true for themselves. Just because it's not true for you doesn't mean it's not true for others.

There is truth in this...... the problem is that it ignores the fact that some populations have adapted to post-neolithic diets (e.g. the ability to digest lactose as adults in Europeans and Masai people) and also the diet commonly pushed as "paleo" online bears no resemblence to actual hunter-gatherer diets. But people descended from populations that have been hunter-gatherers until recently (e.g. native Australians) do have much higher rates of lactose intolerance and there's probably similar things going on with some foods that were not eaten in large quantities until after the neolithic era or industrial era. So it's not complete bunk. Just that it's not been executed well and a lot of important scientific points have been disregarded. and the people promoting it have no idea what palaeolithic people actually ate. Hence the witchetty grub gif I posted earlier in the thread.
it comes down to the fact that if a food makes you ill, you shouldn't eat it, if it doesn't then there's no reason not to eat it.