Skip to main content

Seriously? You’ve based an entire health diet on my eating habits? That’s hysterical! For one thing, a habit is something you do a lot. If I ate anything at all, it was a miracle. Trust me, I wasn’t picky.

Here’s a typical carte du jour of my culinary intake:

Breakfast: Nothing.

Lunch: Nothing.

Dinner: A stick.

According to this diet of yours, we Paleos ate lots of meat, veggies, seafood, nuts and seeds but we avoided grains, sugars, dairy, starches, glutens and legumes. Supposedly that’s how we stayed healthy and lost weight. May I laugh now?

First of all, I don’t know what the hell legumes are, but if there were any around, I ate them. Same goes for grains and starches. Being gluten-free wasn’t a big issue for me. If someone had offered me a milkshake with antibiotics in it, French fries and a processed baloney sandwich on whole wheat bread, you think I would’ve said “No thanks, I’m watching my cholesterol”?

Losing weight was not a goal for us, folks. Eating bark doesn’t make you fat. All of us were hideously thin in those days. In fact, if you had actual flesh on your body, you were considered suspicious.

Were we healthy? Oh yeah, if you overlook the boils, fevers, headaches, rashes, fungus, open sores that didn’t heal, the occasional limb that turned purple and fell off, assorted excruciating pains everywhere – you get the picture. Don’t even get me started on teeth. The only thing we didn’t suffer from was hair loss.

Here’s a typical day in my pathetic life: Maybe I wake up, maybe I don’t. My wife Urghfin and I gather some dirt for breakfast. She says, “Migbik, go out and catch something for dinner. Try not to get eaten by an animal or killed by the other tribe that lives in the cul-de-sac. I’ll see if I can find a soft rock for a side dish.”

Did we eat lots of meat? Are you kidding? Once in a while, I would try to kill a boar. More often, the boar would come dangerously close to killing me and my entire family, all of whom were half dead anyway because of malnutrition. Boars could run very quickly (we used to call them fast food) and they had attitude.

Keep one thing in mind, dieters – in those days people were still part of the food chain, a fairly slow-moving part of the food chain, so we ran away a lot, which was another reason we lost weight – we were always exercising but not by choice.

Sure, in those days all the animals were grass-fed. So what? How did we benefit from that if we couldn’t catch them? If we found a dead, rotting grass-fed carcass, we would eat it. But the next day a weird thing would happen. Foul-smelling fluids would shoot out of our mouths and butts. It took us nine-hundred years to make the connection.

Yes, I’ll admit it, we were pretty stupid. You know why? Low blood sugar.

Seafood? Correct me if I’m wrong but I think you have to live near the sea to get seafood. I had a scum pond nearby, but when was the last time you tried to catch a minnow with a rock?

Besides, how do you even know what we ate? You think we scribbled the day’s menu on our cave walls? No, we drew pictures of things we wanted to eat, which was anything at all. Evidently, you have not yet found the cave wall where I scribbled pictures of my dream food -- donuts.

Here’s another thing I don’t get about your diet: It’s supposed to make you live longer. Unfortunately, nobody I knew wanted to live longer. I don’t know how long I lived, but I knew a sage named Gurk who could tell time because he studied that bright thing in the sky which he said we could reach if we had a ladder. For some reason, he was blind.

Gurk said I lived to the ripe old age of twenty. He said I would have lived three days longer if I’d avoided legumes.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Hunters and gatherers were generally pretty (24+ / 0-)

    healthy, actually. Since they nursed for several years, child birth was more widely spaced than in industrial societies. The high infant mortality rates seen in the centuries before the present were more due to poor sewage and nutrition; there are no data to support such high rates among hunters and gatherers.

    The technology of agriculture led to a population explosion but it was accompanied by osteoporosis and dental caries due to the lower nutrional quality of the diet.

    More on hunter-gatherer societies.



    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:16:20 AM PDT

    •  More: (15+ / 0-)
      Data on modern-day hunter-gatherers as well as hunter-gatherer-agriculturalists who consumed traditional diets indicate that such societies are largely free of diseases of civilization regardless of whether a high percentage of dietary energy is supplied by wild animal foods (eg, in Canadian Eskimos), wild plant foods (eg, in the !Kung), or domesticated plant foods taken primarily from a single cultivar (eg, in the Yanomamo) (7–11).
      Source: AJCN



      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Wee Mama on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:23:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What was the life span ? (0+ / 0-)

      Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11 + Trusted Users have a responsibility to police the general tenor... Hunter 5/26/06

      by indycam on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:41:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Infant mortality was higher than ours but folks (0+ / 0-)

        who lived to fifteen did okay -

        The modal age of mortality in hunter-gatherers can range from 68 in the Hiwi to 78 in the Tsimane. In the united states as of 2002 the mode age of mortality was 85. In most cases about 30% of of adult deaths occur at ages above the modal age of mortality.

        There is, as one would expect, a clear trend towards longer life and lower infant mortality rates in industrialized societies. However the lifespan of hunter-gatherers is not as low as commonly thought and in many respects rivals that of the industrialized world . This information may give us a window into the lifespan of early humans.

        (should say, higher than in industrialized and well developled countries)



        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Thu May 09, 2013 at 03:19:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  For 50K years, man consumed fruits, vegetables and (5+ / 0-)

      meat.

      Then, about 100 years ago, the body began to consume processed food.

      Something's gotta give.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

      by PatriciaVa on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:46:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Umm how about: grains were domesticated (6+ / 0-)

        between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago.  We've been eating grains and grain based foods since then.

        "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it... unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha

        by Brian A on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:13:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We were always eating grains in the wild (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          True North, RiveroftheWest, Brian A

          ever since we gained control of fire. I wouldn't be surprised if soft, unripe grains were also eaten.

          Green wild oats in my area are delicious, and at certain times of the year are quite abundant in my area. Paleos in the Fertile Crescent area would have had a good variety of large-seeded grasses to choose from.

          "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

          by Crider on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:22:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Now that I think of it (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            True North, RiveroftheWest

            Whole seeds, such as wheat, soaked in water for a day are quite palatable. No cooking necessary. All that's needed is a vessel to hold water.

            "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

            by Crider on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:35:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I used to eat raw grains for cereal every morning (4+ / 0-)

              which were soaked in water (muesli). My stomach would hurt a bit afterwords, and I wondered why. And legumes would give me horrible gas even when properly cooked. Grains when cooked would make me feel a little bloated.

              When I eat foods of the paleolithic diet, I never feel digestive discomfort, even when I pig out, and usually I never feel cravings to overeat after changing to this diet, since it is so satiating. And stools became normal for the first time.

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:45:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Diversity of diets (0+ / 0-)

                I'm glad you found a way to eliminate the digestive discomfort.  For similar reasons, my wife and mother in law can't consume anything more than small amounts of dairy products every day.  

                What really burns me is the Paleo purists who insist we ALL are eating wrong and are killing ourselves in the process.  In my case, my tummy and digestive system are never happier than when they're full of beans and other legumes, so I think the key is what you said: to find what works for you and try to ignore the blanket statements.

                "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it... unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha

                by Brian A on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:13:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  And ancient grains aren't bad (4+ / 0-)

          Like spelt, or emmer and einkorn wheat.  But the wheat that is commercially available today has been modified to have less protein and more gluten. More and more people are developing gluten sensitivities and intolerance and many more have chronic issues that not consuming gluten would help.

          Poor man wanna be rich Rich man wanna be king And a King ain't satisfied Till he rules everything

          by jetfan on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:42:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's probably thanks to Monsantao :( (0+ / 0-)

            Since when is the party that embraces all the top tenets of Satan allowed to call the God shots?--wyvern

            by voracious on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:56:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)
            But the wheat that is commercially available today has been modified to have less protein and more gluten.
            No. Gluten is actually the main protein in wheat.

            This fascist kills machines.

            by drmonkey on Thu May 09, 2013 at 11:09:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Very good to see a renewed interest in ancient (0+ / 0-)

            grains.  Having a greater diversity of wheat relatives (the three you mentioned are all close relatives of wheat, right?) will help to protect us against blight in the future, since so much of the wheat we grow now is mono-culture.

            Havent ever heard of Einkorn wheat, will have to check that one out!

            "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it... unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha

            by Brian A on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:14:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  People were eating grains (bread) before 1913. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PatriciaVa, voracious, ebohlman

        You know that, right?

      •  So which one is bread? (0+ / 0-)

        or wine?
        or mead?
        or beer?

        Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

        by dhonig on Thu May 09, 2013 at 12:13:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  As soon as they had enough to eat (0+ / 0-)

    After centuries of near starvation, of every waking moment committed to the finding of food, one day paleo "man" found himself with a day of plenty. The next thing he did, I am certain, was think of his place in the universe and of "God". Along the way, paleo has invented thousands of different religions and diety's, many of them enormously popular in their day. Had you spoken out about Zeuss or Thor, both of whom seem quaint today, likely it is that you would have been tortured and killed. Christianity came along and, though the faith said not to kill, nevertheless the old practices prevailed and people were tortured and killed.

    After thousands of years with plenty to eat, today we are no closer to the nature of God and our place in the universe than we were on that first day when we had full stomachs.

    All religions are frauds.

  •  First... I think this is a snark (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jojos Mojo, jrooth, TiaRachel, Nattiq

    diary, right?

    Second, diseases didn't turn into pandemics because we were spread out over an area, not concentrated.  

    Diets, were poor at times.  Man learned to preserve foods to keep the supply available for the lean times.  Hunts, were not really the one-off go get a rabbit... mostly big hunts then preserve via salt, smoking, drying.  

    "Death is the winner in any war." - Nightwish/Imaginareum/Song of myself.

    by doingbusinessas on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:30:59 AM PDT

  •  This is a pretty sad attempt at humor (6+ / 0-)

    Humans evolved. Our bodies are still adapted to thrive on the diets we had millions of years ago.

    Agriculture has caused drastic changes in our diets in the last few thousand years, and our species has not had time for evolution to catch up.  

    Studying what our ancestors ate, and how often, have helped inform us what a more healthful diet would look like.  My wife and several friends have seen great improvements in joint pain, psoriasis, and energy from following it.

    Rather than reading your hurr-durr-paleo-man twaddle, I would recommend people read books like Catching Fire: How Cooking Made us Human, by Richard Wrangham

    •  This is pretty rude and unnecessary (13+ / 0-)
      Rather than reading your hurr-durr-paleo-man twaddle
      I really enjoyed this diary and laughed all the way through it. I don't believe it is meant to be considered a peer-reviewed journal submission on the topic.

      Since when is the party that embraces all the top tenets of Satan allowed to call the God shots?--wyvern

      by voracious on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:54:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Man has evolved a lot in the last million or so (0+ / 0-)

      years. Especially since the discovery and general usage of fire.

      Agriculture has caused drastic changes in our diets in the last few thousand years, and our species has not had time for evolution to catch up.
      Do you have a source for that claim? Because a massive change in diet would almost necessarily mean a change in genes, if only because some folks wouldn't be able to eat it at all and would die before having kids. Huge changes like that have evolutionary effects virtually every time.

      Here's an article on fire and evolution.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:55:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  evolution is not instant (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        melfunction, ScienceMom, Nattiq

        It can take a long time for adaptation to change to occur, especially if, as in this case, the effects of the change (low carb -> high carb diet) don't have much of an effect until long after the age of reproduction.

        Also, evolution, being based on random mutation, does not always lead to optimal adaptation, and more important; adaptation won't happen to traits that don't impact reproduction. So, while people may be somewhat "adapted" to high carb diets, they may still be prone to diseases that show up later in life (30's onward).

        History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx

        by quill on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:48:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't say evolution was instant (0+ / 0-)

          And nothing you said addressed my point. Agriculture was a bottleneck, that means it applied evolutionary pressure that weeded certain people based on previously occurring mutations and genetic makeup. If there is a sudden bottleneck then evolution does occur on a very short time scale. Like when we see a response to an especially bad disease pandemic when the survivors are all immune, or mostly immune. There are numerous other examples where evolution can occur relatively quickly.

          What you're giving is a very basic version of evolution that doesn't take into account things like punctuated equilibrium and other more recent discoveries.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:52:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  not quite right (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, TiaRachel

            You are saying that a change in diet created an evolutionary bottleneck that strongly drove adaptation. Evolution happens due to differential reproduction, so you are implying that people with carb adapted gene mutations survived more often to reproductive age and/or reproduced more, and that this was a strong effect.

            I'm saying that most of the negative effects of a high carb diet hit well after reproductive age, meaning that people with adapted genes reproduce at about the same rate as those who aren't adapted. And therefore there was likely only a mild selective pressure to adapt to the new diet, and NOT a punctuated equilibrium type evolutionary event.

            History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx

            by quill on Thu May 09, 2013 at 11:37:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This makes much more sense (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              quill

              I didn't understand what you were saying there, sorry for the confusion. I would still expect that the changes in living conditions would have had an effect too and I'd be interested to see the research on that. Things like disease on how trash, etc. affected people in general, especially infant mortality.

              Göbekli Tepe interests me enormously and makes me wonder how much of a role settlements played in the creation of agriculture rather than the other way around.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Thu May 09, 2013 at 11:49:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  human evolution is hard to figure out (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT

                I suppose the benefits of food cultivation, and staying in fixed location communities are inter-related, which is to say it may not be a simple cause-effect relationship.

                Which gets to another point about human evolution: we're not like most other animals in that there are complex feedback loops between culture, and the effects of culture (e.g., changing our environment), on our evolution. For example, one culture may value certain physical traits, for no particular reason, leading to sexual preferences and evolution towards enhancing those traits, which in turn feeds into some other arbitrary preference...

                Similarly, as you say, when we change the environment we may end up selecting for traits that help us survive our chosen changes. However, the strength of selection may not be very strong (see my carb argument), and may be diluted by gene flow (people entering or leaving a population). And finally, the rapid pace of cultural change that our species imposes, may cause rapid shifts in selection pressure that adaptation can't keep up with. The result is a global population that has a huge variety of genetic phenotypes, from physical features to disease resistance to genetically based disease tendencies, and frequently no cut and dried adaptationist explanation for how any of it came to be.

                I'm sorry, what were we talking about??

                History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx

                by quill on Thu May 09, 2013 at 01:40:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We were talking about neat complex things (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  quill

                  The other side of all of this is that a lot of people look at how things are right now and expand that to all of human history in terms of survival rates and other similar things. Which just doesn't work. One of the interesting things about humans is that we rally are heading toward some sort of genetic diversification, either through colonization of other planets and the resulting isolation, or through a population bottleneck. Not 100% guaranteed, but it seems pretty likely. Given the current increase in genetic diversity and interbreeding between different genetic lines, which is really unique in human history, I think there will be some interesting results from that. Though obviously I won't be here to see it.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Thu May 09, 2013 at 01:53:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't think the future is so bright (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    AoT

                    I think that, basically, humans have replaced genetic adaptation and natural selection with cultural adaptation and technology. We don't evolve naturally any more, and thanks to ethical/moral concerns we aren't allowed to evolve un-naturally either, which means we are basically stuck with the current gene pool for the forseeable future.

                    In a few hundred years, climate change will degrade the the Earth past human livability in most parts, and there is a strong likelihood that an energy crash will turn back the clock on technology (sure we know how to build a rocket, but there's no fuel to run it), at which point I think that our goose will be cooked.

                    But, a hell of a lot can happen between now and then, and who knows - we may yet figure out how to pull our asses out of the fire.

                    History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx

                    by quill on Thu May 09, 2013 at 06:05:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Me too, sciatic pain going away, sinsus issues (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      True North, ScienceMom

      cleared up, easy wieght loss, I don't understand why anyone would harsh this way of eating...

  •  For another debunking of the Paleo Diet (10+ / 0-)

    There's a TEDx talk from a real live Harvard archeologist/anthropologist calling bullshit on the paleo fad. Quite entertaining.

    "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

    by Crider on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:35:24 AM PDT

    •  Thank you! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SoCaliana

      That is an excellent Ted Talk.

      I learned a lot.

      Among other things, it became clear that supermarkets don't sell the foods that Paleo people ate, in the forms they ate it.

    •  TEDx talks (in general) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nattiq

      aren't presumptively reliable or authoritative -- it's a franchise.  

      (I've got some philosophical differences with the choices TED make for their actual talks, but TEDx talks don't even necessarily meet those standards.)

      Might be entertaining, but that doesn't have to have any relation whatsoever to accuracy. Actually, IME, the more entertaining (in general-public terms) anything even vaguely related to scientific knowledge is, the more likely it is to be inaccurate, especially re: the small details.

  •  Hey Paleo (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    voracious, AoT, koNko, Crider, SoCaliana

    what was the coffee like back in the day ?

    Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11 + Trusted Users have a responsibility to police the general tenor... Hunter 5/26/06

    by indycam on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:40:54 AM PDT

    •  They collected beans from Civet poop! (2+ / 0-)

      Still thought to this day to make a rare and tasty beverage.

      "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

      by Crider on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:26:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did you see that people are trying (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Crider, Catte Nappe

        other animals to do the same thing as the civet ?

        Now maybe when you go to the coffee shop
        you will need to choose
        what country ,
        what roast ,
        what grind ,
        shade or no shade ,
        organic or not ,
        what temperature ,
        collective or big business ,
        and
        what animal gut .

         

        Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11 + Trusted Users have a responsibility to police the general tenor... Hunter 5/26/06

        by indycam on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:37:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Rare, I believe. Tasty...not so sure about that (0+ / 0-)

        Since when is the party that embraces all the top tenets of Satan allowed to call the God shots?--wyvern

        by voracious on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:54:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  humor fail (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ZhenRen, TiaRachel, Nattiq

    Paleo humans did not have access to legumes, grains, dairy products, etc, and were adapted to the food that they could eat (the "Paleo diet").

    No doubt early humans would have eaten a modern diet if they could have, but they couldn't, and so exactly what is your fucking point?

    History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx

    by quill on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:42:45 AM PDT

    •  I thought this was hillarious. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crider, penguins4peace

      Since when is the party that embraces all the top tenets of Satan allowed to call the God shots?--wyvern

      by voracious on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:55:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So you are suggesting (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crider, True North

      All of the above are recent developments? I'd probably agree that animal milk dates back no further than the advent of agrarian society but grain and legumes predate irate bloggers by a bit.

      {Not a sigline. You are hallucinating.}

      by koNko on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:00:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  According to Cordain (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        quill, melfunction, Nattiq, koNko

        who is a researcher of ancient diets, before the agricultural revolution (about 10,000 years ago) humans only ate grains and legumes when there was no other choice and they were starving, since these weren't efficiently gathered in large enough quantities sufficient to feed an entire tribe. Ancient legumes and grains (before modern selective breading) were very small, and did not uniformly ripen (which made collection difficult since people would have to pick through the grass looking for tiny, ripe grains).

        And diary from animals began with animal husbandry about 6,000 years ago.

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:20:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But Cordain is full of civet poop (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          True North, Mortifyd, koNko

          Here's just a rundown of the peer reviews of Cordain's assumptions.

          "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

          by Crider on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:29:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Those aren't all peer reviews (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ScienceMom, koNko

            This is a complex area of study, and there is a lot of disagreement and no consensus has been developed among so-called experts. One can find a study to support almost any nutritional theory.

            Takes a lot of time to absorb it all, and it requires more than a cursory glance. I can tell you this: After more than three decades as a vegan/vegetarian, my health improved in measurable ways once I began eating the ancient paleolithic diet.

            LDL went down, HDL went up, triglycerides went from 250 to 60, blood pressure went down to normal, and extremely painful tendinitis (inflammation) in my knee went away completely, and never returned, digestion improved, sleep improved, weight became normal, energy and mental outlook improved, musculature strength improved, complexion improved, hair appearance improved.

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:39:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  All I ever did was go GMO-free (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              voracious, True North, koNko

              I've been vegetarian for more than 20 years, and although I have no health complaints, giving up GMOs meant giving up packaged food.

              I mill my own wheat and make sourdough breads & pizzas, make my own tortillas from whole field corn. Eliminating packaged food is an improvement for me, gut wise, and I still enjoy grains.

              "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

              by Crider on Thu May 09, 2013 at 11:01:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I became a vegetarian (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ScienceMom, koNko

                at age 14, and it took about 20 to 30 years before problems began that became increasingly impossible to ignore. Weight gain from metabolic imbalances, cholesterol irregularities, hypertension, severe headaches, low energy and sudden energy loss, fatigue, painful inflammation, a feeling of being light headed, all were symptoms and signs which evaporated completely within only a few weeks when I changed my diet.

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Thu May 09, 2013 at 11:11:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  You mill your own wheat? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Crider, 2laneIA, koNko

                I barely have time to vaccum up cat and dog hair.

                Since when is the party that embraces all the top tenets of Satan allowed to call the God shots?--wyvern

                by voracious on Thu May 09, 2013 at 11:40:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yah, I got a little stone mill (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  voracious, koNko

                  I like it more than actual baking. Next lifetime, I know what I want my career to be!

                  "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

                  by Crider on Thu May 09, 2013 at 11:45:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Ted Talk (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ebohlman, koNko

          ZhenRen, Crider provided a link to a fascinating Ted Talk by Dr. Warinner, who is a scientist who specializes in research on ancient diets. That's a few comments up from here.

          It is a really fascinating presentation.

          One pretty basic point she makes is that none of us who get our food in supermarkets are eating the same thing that ancient peoples ate. Even the meat comes by way of farmers, with animals bred so that the meat is layered with fat. Vegetables? Bred to be beautiful, easy to eat, and non-toxic.

          Paleo diets varied from one region to another. People ate what they could get their hands on.

          I've heard her interviewed elsewhere. She noted that evolution didn't stop in Paleo times. Humans continued to evolve, adapting to changing conditions.

          •  I've recently been reading (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            koNko

            Marlene Zuk's Paleofantasy which generally debunks a lot of assumptions about prehistory and describes how evolution can happen very, very quickly. It's not primarily about diet, though it does point out that the assumptions followed by most paleo dieters don't really hold; a good amount of it deals with how existing species might or might not adapt to climate change.

            Sometimes truth is spoken from privilege and falsehood is spoken to power. Good intentions aren't enough.

            by ebohlman on Thu May 09, 2013 at 04:48:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  All of this is discussed and refuted (0+ / 0-)

            in Cordain's books. Bottom line is she is extremely uninformed on paleolithic dietary science. Cordain is a professor at Colorado State University, specializes in ancient diets, and studies/researches these diets extensively. He points out in his works/published studies that people ate various ratios of meats/vegetables/fruits/nuts depending on latitude and region. It is well known that ancient people ate a much wider variety of vegetables than are available today. Even insects were eaten. Warrinner is far from the first to point out selective breeding of vegetables in modern diets, or that modern meats are not natural unless grass fed and free range. Cordain mentions all of these in his book, which makes me wonder if she read his works. She is rather ignorant of basic facts about ancient diets. What she doesn't point out is these same facts apply to grains and legumes as well, which are nothing like the tiny grains which ripened unevenly in ancient times, and which were thus very hard to gather in sufficient quantities until the agricultural revolutions took place. The foods they could "get their hands on" tended to be foods that were efficiently gathered and hunted species, and grains and legumes simply were not gatherable in large enough quantities to make them worth the effort unless they were starving.

            And of course evolution keeps going, but simply stating this isn't evidence humans have adapted well enough to the agricultural revolution to make these foods healthy, and all of the reports coming in from around the world are showing very good results for various illnesses from people switching to the diet. My own experience proves it works for me.

            I suggest you read some of the scientific papers and books on the topic.

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Thu May 09, 2013 at 11:15:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Noted and thanks (0+ / 0-)

          My point is that, before the advent of organized agriculture, humans, like other animals, ate what was available by foraging and this included all kinds of things including grains and legumes. And yes, the wild grains are work to collect and cook (tend to be much denser) but if that was what was available, it was eaten. It's not exactly like they were late to meet their friends on Facebook and didn't have the time to survive.

          In fact, even after the advent of agriculture, humans have tended to eat what is available including things like bark and roots if that was the only choice. Hence, we have wonderful stuff like cinnamon, tree fungus, turnips, etc. If you can't get enough from the rice growing on the river side, the worms that live in the roots are available in abundance.

          Considering the diversity of "strange and usual" food eaten in some cultures, I'm certain that famines played a role in forcing exploration and innovation.

          I'd also draw the point that until the advent of modern industrial farming, even domesticated crops maintained diversity due to the random introduction of wild species.

          Industrial farming as usually practiced is really a mistake; by design and effect, we are narrowing biodiversity to the point it could prompt our own extinction.

          {Not a sigline. You are hallucinating.}

          by koNko on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:27:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well (0+ / 0-)
            My point is that, before the advent of organized agriculture, humans, like other animals, ate what was available by foraging and this included all kinds of things including grains and legumes.
            What early humans ate has been exhaustively studied by Cordain, who read countless field notes of scientists who observed hunter-gatherers in their natural habitats, which are also recorded on film, in photography, etc. The excavated sites were studied, the skeletal remains were studied, and what has been determined is that grains and legumes (and cow's milk, of course) were not consumed unless there was nothing else to eat in pre-agrarian tribes. They naturally spent time on what was most efficient to obtain, and most satiating, with the least expenditure of energy (wild game, fruits, veggies, a few nuts and seeds), and avoided that which was inefficient to gather. Read the books on the subject by Cordain, who is, by the way, a widely published professor and researcher of countless peer reviewed papers.

            Your comments reveal you have not bothered to get both sides of the topic. These aren't new thoughts you're expressing, and all of these issues are addressed by Cordain in his studies.

            Frankly, for my own part I'm far more interested in how the diet make me feel compared to other diets. I could go find the studies, give you links, but you would have already found them and read them if you wanted both sides.

            You eat what you want, and I will do that same. You've referencing a lecture from a woman who seems rather uninformed, in my opinion. There is so much that she states that are strawman arguments, and in some cases she rather amazingly uses arguments that pro-paleo diet scientists use to support their opinions, as if she is unaware she is doing so, which indicates she hasn't even read extensively on the subject (see another comment on this I made up-thread for an example).

            I've been through these discussions before and I simply don't care to make the tedious effort to inform individuals who are so convinced of their point of view that they simply don't bother getting facts from anyone except those whom they already agree with. There is a lot of good science that supports the diet, and while some of the self-described "expert" naysayers seem knowledgeable upon first hearing their comments, it soon becomes clear they are missing the mark if you are well read on the other side of the debate.

            I will eat what obviously makes me healthy, and after three decades of vegetarianism, the ancient diet I'm now eating and have been eating for ten years has allowed a complete cure of various health problems I was experiencing, and that's all that matters, however much you believe you know better than I do about my own body.  I mentioned briefly some of my history up-thread, which apparently you've ignored, as if it is meaningless to you... which makes this easy for me to walk away from since its clear I'm not going to convince you of anything new.

            I mean no insult. Unlike some of the academics, I have decades of experience with various dietary approaches, having actually tried them for years, and it is quite easy to discover what works and what doesn't. When several popular diets inflame my knee, while another diet eases quickly that inflammation, its not difficult to make the choice which allows me to walk without pain, so that I can enjoy the hikes I love to take. That's the bottom line and that is reality.

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Thu May 09, 2013 at 11:53:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't narrow my vision (0+ / 0-)

              To a few specimens from certain places, or that the story begins or ends with Cordain's research. That doesn't dispute his work.

              I do expect that early humans, living in a less populous and developed world, would have benefited from whatever abundance surrounded them, along with the dangers. They wouldn't work too hard or long without a return, so I do expect their diet might have been balanced toward the available, wherever they were. But that's not to say what A ate is better than B, or we shouldn't venture beyond. Lots of heathy food is the product of civilization.

              But that said, I do think that wholesome food in it's natural state (or close to it, if you want to eat nuts) is best.

              Eat to be healthy. Different diets work for different people and I believe that evolution has adapted us to our surroundings, hence, local diets that seem to make some populations thrive may not work well for others.

              Certainly some populations have heredity intolerance others don't have. The daily glass of wine so heathy for much of the world is poison for some Asians lacking the enzymes to digest it, and our high carbohydrate rice diets would lead to obesity in some other populations.

              If I don't eat enough rice or noodles for a couple of days, I find myself getting faint, and without the high fiber of my mostly green dishes, my digestion goes to hell, fast. IOW, my body is conditioned to a certain regimen and changing it has definite effects.

              {Not a sigline. You are hallucinating.}

              by koNko on Fri May 10, 2013 at 03:45:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There are several points here which are mere (0+ / 0-)

                assumptions on your part, but I'm not interested in pursuing this.

                This debate will continue among nutritionists for a long time before the issue is settled.

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:35:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  yes (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ZhenRen, ScienceMom, koNko

        The development and cultivation of grain (and probably legumes) were, last I heard, the cause of the advent of agrarian society. I'm not an Anthropologist, but my understanding is that the ancient grains that were developed into wheat, etc were originally low yield, and if eaten at all, were foraged opportunistically like everything else and were a small part of the diet. Once people started to cultivate grains for higher yield they had to stay put, and human living changed drastically, which was the end of the hunter-gatherer (aka "paleo") mode of existence.

        Clearly we have adapted somewhat to a changed diet. Many races of modern human can handle higher carb and high dairy diets, but others are less adapted. Asians, for example, can handle carbs, but many are lactose intolerant. Meanwhile, people fom other cultures that have not had access to grains or other starches (Inuit people being an extreme example) are not adapted for carbs and have much higher diet related disease rates like diabetes and obesity as a result of switching to a modern diet.

        Many genetic groups were only exposed to high carb diets fairly recently, in the last few thousand years, and so it isn't far fetched to think that adaptation from paleo to agrarian is not complete, which means that, given our diverse genetic makeup, a lower carb diet may be better for some of us.

        History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx

        by quill on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:27:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  By definition (0+ / 0-)

          Any food eaten before the advent of organized agriculture and animal husbandry was foraged, and the "improvement" the wild native species by farming technique (and later) breeding is the proof that humans were eating these species or plant and animals.

          Whether it was 10% or 60% of calories consumed is irrelevant and, I assume, subject to time, place and availability.

          We usually go for the low hanging fruit, but when there isn't any, we learn to climb trees and invent ladders.

          {Not a sigline. You are hallucinating.}

          by koNko on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:33:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Bacon (5+ / 0-)

    All through the ages. Bacon.

    {Not a sigline. You are hallucinating.}

    by koNko on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:56:16 AM PDT

  •  Paleo diet is just eating real food, no processed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ScienceMom, Nattiq

    foods, meat, fish, fowl, vegetables and fruit and nuts and seeds....cured by sinus issues, easy weight loss, no cravings...what is your problem?

    •  It's a good diet, but the 'science' is bad. (8+ / 0-)

      It's too bad that they latched on to this 'paleo' nonsense to justify eating good food. 10,000 years is more than enough time for adaptation to occur.  

      "That being said, I do agree I am going to hell. But for other reasons. Mostly boring tax stuff ' Amy Pohler

      by Annie B on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:17:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Apparently... (5+ / 0-)

        the human genome has changed only .02% in the last 40,000 years.

        The agricultural revolution, when we began growing and thus consuming grains in larger amounts, occurred only 500 generations ago.

        And using diary began about 6,000 years ago, and it is well known that many humans still can't digest diary (something like 75%, mostly outside of Europe).

        When I switched to the ancient paleolithic diet from having been a vegan/vegetarian for over three decades, my health improved dramatically in several measurable ways.

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:27:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Mine too, after only two weeks, less joint pain (0+ / 0-)

          and my sinus drip is gone....and I lost weight easily

        •  Dairy (0+ / 0-)

          Humans have consumed dairy since...forever...if you include human breast milk in the dairy category.

          As I understand it--and I stand to be corrected by any geneticists out there--we have a gene that switches to the "off" position once we are weaned and move on to non-mother's-milk as our nourishment. That makes us into lactose intolerant people.

          However, since most North Americans (among others) continue to consume dairy products, that gene doesn't switch off as long as we do so.

          People who stop consuming dairy products--such as vegans--become lactose intolerant.

  •  As an interesting side note (6+ / 0-)

    people tout the raw foods diet as more "natural" yet the major changes in from Australopithecus to Homo suggests that actually modern humans are adapted to a cooked foods diet, rather than a raw foods diet, since we have evolved shorter, less robust guts and smaller dentition.

    WHen people start talking about what's "natural" always watch out.

    Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

    by Mindful Nature on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:23:48 AM PDT

    •  raw food is not Paleo (3+ / 0-)

      Plenty of evidence that humans were cooking their food during Paleo times. I don't know where the raw food movement came from, but it is unfortunate. Maybe it came from some kind of logic related to diets of other primates. In any case, millions of years back, humans clearly evolved a need to pre-digest their food - either by cooking, fermentation, or what have you.

      So yes, we do need to watch out for proponents of "natural" diets, but that doesn't mean they are always wrong.

      History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx

      by quill on Thu May 09, 2013 at 11:00:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent! The reality of it (0+ / 0-)

    was the late summer/early fall was when our ancestors could ever really pig out, if they were lucky.  Late winter/early spring was famine time.

    "A different world cannot be built by indifferent people." Anon from a fortune cookie I got.

    by coloradocomet on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:26:43 AM PDT

  •  I think agriculture (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nattiq

    brought us dental cavities. Or at least a whole lot more.

  •  Hope this is snark - although it is a cute (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    swampyankee, voracious, True North

    reminder that fads are fads and any "diet" somebody is making millions off of is suspect.  As to life expectancy - nobody seems to remember that it's the average age of death.  Average.  Like averaging my income with Alice Walton's turns my my piddly lower 5-figure income  into millionaires.  Everybody forgets the distaff side - how the heck to you guys think menopause evolved if the human species as individuals died off in their 20s or even 30s?

  •  Live like a paleoman...lose weight (0+ / 0-)

    Your only form of "transportation" are your feet. Your "fast" food..is how quickly you can spear a critter, clean and cook it. Ever go backpacking/hiking for a couple of days?   You can easily lose weight because you are constantly burning calories.

    Its not just the diet...its the sitting on our bee hinds too long too often.

  •  Whatever. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, Nattiq, raboof

    I'm fine with the diet.

  •  Not sure I'd eat that stick man... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiveroftheWest

    it seems to have been up a bunch of people's butts.  And apparently all of them have multiple degrees in anthro, nutrition and lack of humour.

    And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

    by Mortifyd on Thu May 09, 2013 at 03:13:05 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site