Hunter-gatherers vs Westerners

I do think we, as a society, eat WAY too much. Way more then we need to.

I've read so many articles about portion sizes and what we actually need and it seems to me we were raised being given plates that would have fed three to four people!

Anyway, even if our increased weight is due only to increased food intake... I think increased physical activity is vital for good health.

Interesting article!

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.

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.

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.

It doesn't sound like the people mfanyafujo is living around are hunter-gatherers.

Also, intake was *not* measured as part of this study, because it was not the subject of this study. Instead, this study estimated energy *expenditures*.

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.

The main message of the study is that even though the hunter-gathers were more active than their western counter-parts, they did not burn any more energy. The results section of the actual paper (which is here, for free: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0040503 ) suggests that a lower percentage of calories on their base metabolic rate (BMR) than westerners did.

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.

It doesn't sound like the people mfanyafujo is living around are hunter-gatherers.

Yes, I think the region matters less than the lifestyle does. Farming in Africa is likely to be different than hunting and gathering in Africa.

Actually, based on what I've seen, I think sometimes the farming lifestyle is harder than hunting and gathering. Even for simple sustenance farming, the required amount of land and crop output is pretty large. Now imagine that you have to plow up a several acres of a dry, hard, rocky field every year (by hand). For some of the crops, like the root crops, the harvesting process is even more difficult. What kills me is seeing five year olds walking several miles every morning at dawn with tools in hand, headed for the family farm.

Farming is difficult. Gathering - not so much. Hunting - depends on what they are after. The people I live around do a little of everything.

Sorry guys, but why would you need food to record someone's metabolic rate? Isn't that the process where they stick a tube on your mouth and make you breath through your mouth for ages... at least that is how they used to do it. I think hospitals have more advanced (and less gag inducing) methods now?

These studies tend to involve anthropologists actually weighing and measuring the food intake (vs. self-reporting). Doesn't really apply here as this study doesn't appear to have looked at food intake (just expenditure).

It's rare to find true hunter-gatherers anymore though. (and I need to point out that farmers vs. hunter-gatheres is a very different thing). Even true hunter-gatheres don't spend nearly as much time obtaining food as you would think.


Finally, I find it difficult to believe there could be a specific, accurate measurement of calories/energy burned. And without also looking at intake, and also doing this study over multiple seasonal cycles, I think there is just nothing here that's comparable.

Caloric expenditure was measured via o2 intake and co2 output, as well as though something to do with water metabolism (I don't understand that particularly well). Although this is certainly not my area, it is my understanding is that monitoring breathing is a fairly accurate way to measure caloric expenditure.

As far as comparability, they compared energy expenditures over a period of time in hunter-gathers to energy expenditures of westerners over a similar period--while there may be issues, I don't think this is a case of apples and oranges.

A few foward (or backward, as the case may be!) doctors have been using this and similar science for a few years now to encourage health in their patients - that our bodies and brains are perfect for their natural purposes, but none of them was designed for modern Western life - fast food, TV or. . .for that matter, retirement! Just because we have only ever lived in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, it has been our mistake to assume that we humans were "made" for this sedentary life.

Bodies in fact seemed to have been designed for life in nature, where only the fittest survived. To think that in the last couple hundred years we could undo millions and billions of years of evolution is crazy. Our body accepts no language except that of digestion or no digestion, movement or non-movement. If we eat too much, our bodies think that we are stocking up for a long period of famine and it will hoard the excess calories to keep us alive longer. I did this for decades working in business and my body never learned that it had more than enough food! Compounded is the stress factor of our too busy lives. Our bodies read the additional and constant anxiety as death is imminent and it takes the only appropriate measures it knows to try and keep us alive. If we eat too little, our bodies think that all the food is gone and will hord the calories to keep us alive longer. We need to keep our bodies believing that there is enough but not too much. It's a tightrope.

Dr. Henry S. Lodge has been working this angle of health for a few years, since before 2004. For laymen's terms for this process, read "Younger Next Year for Women". It's based on similar empirical evidence as this study.

-Debra

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.

That sounds reasonable. I can't imagine a hunter being effective while running around in the scrub all day screaming 'animals, animals, come to my tummy!!!!!'

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'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.

It doesn't sound like the people mfanyafujo is living around are hunter-gatherers.

Yes, I think the region matters less than the lifestyle does. Farming in Africa is likely to be different than hunting and gathering in Africa.

Actually, based on what I've seen, I think sometimes the farming lifestyle is harder than hunting and gathering. Even for simple sustenance farming, the required amount of land and crop output is pretty large. Now imagine that you have to plow up a several acres of a dry, hard, rocky field every year (by hand). For some of the crops, like the root crops, the harvesting process is even more difficult. What kills me is seeing five year olds walking several miles every morning at dawn with tools in hand, headed for the family farm.

Farming is difficult. Gathering - not so much. Hunting - depends on what they are after. The people I live around do a little of everything.

I'm not sure why you brought this up in the first place. The point was that the hunter-gatherers are not expending as much energy as one would expect, and you're like "but farming is hard!"

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?

Ooohhh. I'm going to go get some popcorn.

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.

It doesn't sound like the people mfanyafujo is living around are hunter-gatherers.

Yes, I think the region matters less than the lifestyle does. Farming in Africa is likely to be different than hunting and gathering in Africa.

Actually, based on what I've seen, I think sometimes the farming lifestyle is harder than hunting and gathering. Even for simple sustenance farming, the required amount of land and crop output is pretty large. Now imagine that you have to plow up a several acres of a dry, hard, rocky field every year (by hand). For some of the crops, like the root crops, the harvesting process is even more difficult. What kills me is seeing five year olds walking several miles every morning at dawn with tools in hand, headed for the family farm.

Farming is difficult. Gathering - not so much. Hunting - depends on what they are after. The people I live around do a little of everything.

I'm not sure why you brought this up in the first place. The point was that the hunter-gatherers are not expending as much energy as one would expect, and you're like "but farming is hard!"

Well, I suppose I was attempting to contribute to the discussion, starting with my experience in a quasi-hunter-gatherer community, and eventually that led to the differences between farming and hunting and gathering, but since YOU don't think it's valid to this discussion, I guess I'll ask everyone to kindly ignore my experiences in Africa. Thank you for your input which has enriched this thread.

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.