Paleo diet

[fluffybear2]

Boy! I had forgotten I had even posted about the Paleo diet on this thread, so didn't realize there were so many replies. Thanks folks! I know there are a lot of pros and cons to the Paleo Diet, esp. Loren Cordain's version. Although some scholars like to divide our past into neatly drawn time frames, it really isn't that easy, esp. considering the fact that for thousands of years there was no written human history. So of course paleontologists/archaeologists have had to ascertain how people lived from carbon dated fossil bones & fragments (including teeth and jaw bones), campsites and coprolites (fossilized human dung). They divided up the different times into eras (mainly for the sake of study) and came up with the Upper Paleolithic, Middle Paleolithic and Lower (or later) Paleolithic eras. So when we speak of "paleo" it could mean any one of these eras.Paleo simply means "old." To add to the confusion there is a period referred to as the Mesolithic Era which spans the time period between the Paleolithic Era and the Neolithic Era. All these eras overlap some at the end and the sum total of all those eras is called "The Stone Age." There is no evidence that dairy was consumed during the paleolithic eras. Humans were weaned between 2 and 5 years of age and it is highly unlikely they needed or wanted to go to the trouble of hunting down an animal to milk, esp. considering the fact that they were on the move a lot from one campsite to another. This is why animal husbandry and agriculture did not occur during this period. There is no one year or date where this can be identified as it happened over a period of thousands of years. Most paleo diets are based upon research done about the Upper Paleolithic era as this was when our genes were pretty much "set in stone" so to speak (no pun intended). We were fully human by that time in other words and the human genome has not changed since that time. As far as the low fat vs. high fat discussion, it isn't so much that Cordain is against high fat as that he is against GRAIN FED animals being a part of our diet. What he tries to do in his book is say that we need to get back as much as possible to eating the same as they did in paleolithic times (ie: grass/range fed animals). He isn't in favor of cooped up chickens being fed corn either. It is also important to note that humans ate differently depending upon the climate and upon their location. Humans living in the warmest climates ate more vegetation than those living in climates with shorter springs and summers. Diet may have differed depending upon whether they lived in jungles/rain forests, savannas or along lakes or seashores. But there is one thing they all had in common and that is that they were able to adapt to their environments which insured their survival and ultimately our existence today. I personally have tried many diets and versions of low carb. I even tried vegetarianism for awhile. But the plan that I have found that is most satisfying to me and easiest is the Paleo Diet. I have started a Paleo Diet thread on the "Other Plans" section here on LCF if anyone is interested:

http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/ot...aleo-diet.html

[SashimiMark]

When it comes to red meat, I'm only eating grass-fed beef with an omega 6:3 ratio comparable to fish. I pray for the day I can buy it in my local grocery store.

[fluffybear2]

Originally Posted by SashimiMark

When it comes to red meat, I'm only eating grass-fed beef with an omega 6:3 ratio comparable to fish. I pray for the day I can buy it in my local grocery store.

Yes, I agree and added that to my post above. It is really the grain fed vs the grass fed issue that matters the most. You can find sources for grass fed meat in your local area on this website:

Eat Wild

Also you can find sources for bison (buffalo), elk, moose and other "wild" meats such as pheasant, rabbit, duck, quail, etc. by googling on the internet.

They are expensive however.

[jem51]

i was looking at my budget recently and thinking that i'd have to stop getting my 1/4-1/2 cow. but the environmental issue even out weighed the health issue. so i will find a way.....it would be much cheaper for me to go paleo. when i went to the market yesterday and picked up organic dairy supplies i thought, 'i can't afford this anymore'. so sad....

[Prairieprof]

I can find grass-fed ground beef in the market part of my local SuperTarget.

[fluffybear2]

Originally Posted by Prairieprof

I can find grass-fed ground beef in the market part of my local SuperTarget.

Hmm, wish we had a super Target where I live. I've been in one and really like it. Unfortunatley we just have the regular Targets here.

[wall]

Originally Posted by fluffybear2

Although some scholars like to divide our past into neatly drawn time frames, it really isn't that easy, esp. considering the fact that for thousands of years there was no written human history. So of course paleontologists/archaeologists have had to ascertain how people lived from carbon dated fossil bones & fragments (including teeth and jaw bones), campsites and coprolites (fossilized human dung).

Do you think the ones with the fattest bones only ate manna?

[fluffybear2]

Originally Posted by wall

Do you think the ones with the fattest bones only ate manna?

What is manna?

[Leo41]

There was an article in the Science section of the NY Times this week about "paleo" eating, and the evolutionary biologist who wrote it made points similar to Fawn's--i.e., the healthiest eating is in response to the environment. Our ancestors weren't exposed to the toxins and pollutants that we are. Yes, eliminating processed foods is a good thing, but factory farmed meat is not healthy. And yoghurt may be essential for many people's GI tracts, etc. For me, an anti-oxident, anti-inflammatory diet is critical.

[fluffybear2]

Originally Posted by Leo41

There was an article in the Science section of the NY Times this week about "paleo" eating, and the evolutionary biologist who wrote it made points similar to Fawn's--i.e., the healthiest eating is in response to the environment. Our ancestors weren't exposed to the toxins and pollutants that we are. Yes, eliminating processed foods is a good thing, but factory farmed meat is not healthy. And yoghurt may be essential for many people's GI tracts, etc. For me, an anti-oxident, anti-inflammatory diet is critical.

I certainly agree about factory farms whether talking about plants OR animals. It takes some work to find non-factory farmed meats. In fact some people who raise grass fed beef get really frustrated because once they take their beef to market their cattle are put into holding pens and fed corn and soy just like all the other cattle before being slaughtered. Some of these cattle become downer cattle because they are not used to eating such grains.

I am looking for sources of grass fed beef that I can buy directly from the rancher and have butchered without going through that process. I grew up on a small farm. We raised our own beef and grew all our own vegetables. I haven't been able to do that as an adult although I do still grow most of my own vegetables and also have several bearing fruit trees in my yard.

As far as dairy goes, my brother had an allergy to it while growing up and my youngest son is lactose intolerant. I never had a problem with it myself. However I don't need the extra calories and maintain that it is not essential to good nutrition. If it were, fish would have udders, because there are many people indigenous to islands that never saw a cow or goat until Europeans discovered their islands. They obtained (and some still obtain) both their protein AND their calcium from seafood (plant and animal).

[Cassaroll]

This is pretty amazing stuff! I just wanted to add that although I eat paleo (well loosely anways, I still eat salt and some fermented foods), I would not recommend it for everyone. I've just found that this is what my body responds best to. I think everyone needs to experiment individually with nutrition to determine what is best for his or her body. No two people have the same ancestry or genetic code, so what works well for one person may be horrible for another. I hope that one day, we will have individualized nutritional guidelines based on genetics and ancestry so people will know what foods to eat for optimum health. Until then, I guess everyone will just have to listen to their body and evaluate their diet by how they look and feel.

[fawn]

Yes Leo, it's critical for everyone.

Claiming paleo on a conventional factory farmed meat diet is not really paleo.

[fluffybear2]

Originally Posted by fawn

Yes Leo, it's critical for everyone.

Claiming paleo on a conventional factory farmed meat diet is not really paleo.

It is literally impossible for anyone to eat exactly like humans who lived during paleolithic times and I have never seen anyone, including Loren Cordain who said we could. Nonetheless it is a model that is not only worth taking a look at but in many people's opinions emulating as much as possible in this day and time. Our genes are the same as those ancient ancestors, but our diet has changed tremendously and with it our health (for the worse). From a personal standpoint and after trying many other WOE's I can say that I love this way of eating for many reasons, not the least of it, the simplicity. Besides I just love studying Nutritional Anthropology. I find it fascinating.

[fawn]

Fluffy, I think it's very interesting and cool too.....I agree with a certain aspect of the style of eating and choose not to get involved in the lack of antioxidants though that is the one thing that has changed most drastically is the amount of toxins our livers must decypher.......and this is where antioxidants fall..........
and you're right......it is impossible to even get close to our ancestors diets.....even from just 100 years ago! I'm not arguing the point of a paleo style diet. I often say to my clients as ray audette said, "Don't eat anything you can't kill with a sharp stick naked" or something like that.........
There are some days that I do in fact follow a more paleo lifestyle especially if I'm nearing my period as it helps with the water retention. But, I choose 100% grass fed and even elk and venison.........not ground beef or steaks from Safeway. That's what I'm referring to.

We're on the same page girl

[jem51]

that's right fluffy bear, you really can't go back and eat an identical diet. you can come closer if you hunt, fish and gather wild stuff. yes, there are peop who do this and are considered strange. but i think you can do okay as a modern forager w/o pill popping. it just depends on what you've bought in to.

[wall]

Originally Posted by fluffybear2

What is manna?

that was a joke


I failed...

[Tesaje]

Originally Posted by jem51

that's right fluffy bear, you really can't go back and eat an identical diet. you can come closer if you hunt, fish and gather wild stuff. yes, there are peop who do this and are considered strange. but i think you can do okay as a modern forager w/o pill popping. it just depends on what you've bought in to.

Even this is impossible to duplicate in today's world. The wild animals also have many more toxins from our polluted world than they did 15k years ago. Also, there are just way too many people on this earth to support a hunter/gatherer life.

Studies of aboriginal peoples show that a substantial proportion of their diets were gathered by women who did the primary gathering function but also did some small animal/insect trapping to supply the tribe's food supply. They routinely did various food preservation techniques for when food was plentiful. This would have been during the late summer/fall seasons when plants come to fruition and from big kills. These food stuffs would have contained lots of antioxidants. Also, fermentation is a natural process that you can't really keep from doing when you don't have refrigeration. So they probably had fermented foods all the time. It also helps keep water safer to ingest.

Those people knew their environment very well. They knew what herbs and leaves were good and what was not. Typically, herbs contain very rich sources of antioxidants. They would have made stews a lot. It makes water potable and lets all manner of foods taste better and kills bacterial growth so even old food would have been safe to eat. Making stew pots out of skins is a very effective and ancient technique which would leave little fossil evidence. Also weaving baskets is probably a paleolithic ability that would not leave fossil evidence. The use of fire to cook with and keep warm is plenty old enough to have formulated our genetic imprinting.

The NA technique of rounding up bison and driving them over a cliff to get tons of food was likely an extremely old technique of harvesting herd animals. This meant there was a huge job of skinning/tanning/drying the plethora of meat to have during the leaner periods and long winters. The caching of food like this means they didn't move as much as our popular ideas make us believe. A lot of this idea of constantly moving aborigines is from bleak-environment desert peoples and our own pushing and starving of our Native American peoples.

The archeological record shows that they weren't all that mobile. They tended to stay in a general area and lived in long houses made of wood/bone and skins and reeds for long periods as well as in caves. Some groups may have followed migrating herds like the Laplanders and Eskimos, but it wasn't necessary in a lot of places like France, for example. The ice age environment was very rich in food stuffs. The caves, where the best preservation occured, shows people lived in them for very long periods.

Our problem in today's world is to figure out how agriculture can be done to make our foods healthy for us now. I eat only grass-finished red meat. Grass fed can mean it is finished in a feed lot and is no better than any other feedlot cow. It needs to be specified as grass-finished. I also want poultry/eggs that have a yard to run around in so they can eat grass/vegetables/insects like chickens are meant to eat. Fish fed grain are not healthy either. Animals given their natural diet produce much healthier meat and fat than our torturing modern methods produce. It is neat how treating food animals well so they live happy, healthy lives before they become our dinner is also much healthier for us. Now, if only we could get the USDA to see this and require all farms to treat their animals decently and feed them their natural diets, we would all be healthier.

[fluffybear2]

I agree with you completely,Tasaje. I don't think Loren Cordain, author of The Paleo Diet, had any illusions about that. There are a lot of outdoorsmen and women and students of anthropology who like to think we can get a semblance to that lifestyle, but most of us (even people like me who love to fish and camp) are not too starry eyed about that. I have mentioned in other posts that I once did a paper in a college anthropology class about the Sans Bushmen. I leanred a lot, but certainly would never want to live like they did (or still do). After all, to keep cool they would dig a shallow pit and line in with leaves and then pee on it and lay down in it to keep cool. NOT something I would want to do. I am also not too keen on eating insects and larvae. Nonetheless, there are some valid arguments in favor of the nutritional composition of their diets ascertained from the study of paleolithic campsites as well as the fossil record. Nutritional anthropologists believe that a return to such a diet would be beneficial for many individuals, but do not think that it is practical on a world-wide scale--just too many people now. Loren Cordain even states that in his book.

[weasel!]

Originally Posted by jem51

...
my question has been, and remains, that if game is leaner it stand to reason that we would have eaten less fat. i don't mean really low fat like s/b chicken breasts but not the fat we add and love so much. and really, most fish is not so fatty. especially the fresh water variety. certainly not like salmon and mackeral. most seems pretty lean.
...

This is an excellent question. I've never looked into how much fat is in different kinds of fish, based on where they live and whether they would be available to protohumans without technology, and don't forget things like shellfish that could be picked up and dug up along the shores.

For instance, we can't consider deep ocean fish, like cod, as part of what led us to evolve as we did.

Salmon, though, is something humans can catch with their hands.

I guess the question for how our nutrition developed, given the AA hypothesis, would be: what type of food was available at the shoreline in the part of Africa where homo sapiens developed?

After that, after we left Africa as humans, that is, we would be finding the food that fit in with what we were already adapted to.

[fluffybear2]

It's true that freshwater fish is not as fatty as the ones you mentioned. That's why those types (esp. mackerel) are recommended. The main downside to eating fatty fish is that it seems to have more mercury in it. A sad testament to the poor state of affairs with our modern environment.

I have heard of the aquatic ape hypothesis, but haven't really read much about it myself.

The main thing to consider when eating anything is to keep the proper ratio of the omega fatty acids (I think about 3-4:1 of Omega 6 and Omega 3) Although some people say 1:1) and also keep a good acid-base ratio--although I am still trying to figure out what exactly that ratio is. Anyone know for sure?

[Tesaje]

Originally Posted by fluffybear2

The main thing to consider when eating anything is to keep the proper ratio of the omega fatty acids (I think about 3-4:1 of Omega 6 and Omega 3) Although some people say 1:1) and also keep a good acid-base ratio--although I am still trying to figure out what exactly that ratio is. Anyone know for sure?

I've read that 3-4:1 is doing really well. I've also read hypotheses that say cavemen really had a 1:1 ratio.

[jem51]

there are so many different eras and we seem to disagree based on our pet era. mine is before peop started settling and keeping livestock to whatever degree....when we moved depending on the season and availability of food sources. no we can't replicate but we can do our best with what is currently available. i saw something on the discovery channel a couple years ago involving a tribe in one of the rain forest jungles. they had not been in contact w any outsiders before these producers. anyway, the wove these nets out of vines and then tied them to trees and proceeded to chase game into the net. they cooked them on spits over open fires. i do see how this would be an easy way for humans to 'hunt'. since pretty much anything can out run us, we need to be pretty creative.

[fluffybear2]

Originally Posted by jem51

there are so many different eras and we seem to disagree based on our pet era. mine is before peop started settling and keeping livestock to whatever degree....when we moved depending on the season and availability of food sources. no we can't replicate but we can do our best with what is currently available. i saw something on the discovery channel a couple years ago involving a tribe in one of the rain forest jungles. they had not been in contact w any outsiders before these producers. anyway, the wove these nets out of vines and then tied them to trees and proceeded to chase game into the net. they cooked them on spits over open fires. i do see how this would be an easy way for humans to 'hunt'. since pretty much anything can out run us, we need to be pretty creative.

One of the best shows I ever saw on this subject was Guns, Germs and Steel on PBS. It was based upon the book by the same name by Jarod Diamond. The book itself is very large and time consuming to read, although it would be a good addition to anyone's library if you are interested in that sort of thing. It actually is about why some people were able to conquer other people, but talks a lot about human evolution and development from the earliest times as well as hunter-gatherer societies and the beginning of agriculture and how it shaped the world. Unfortunately, the PBS special is not being shown anymore but you can get a DVD of the series and/or the book from National Geographic.

The National Geographic Online Store - Guns, Germs, and Steel 2-disc DVD Set

You can also rent it from Netflix.

[jem51]

that de-evolution picture is hysterical....and sad.

[Tesaje]

Originally Posted by jem51

there are so many different eras and we seem to disagree based on our pet era. mine is before peop started settling and keeping livestock to whatever degree....when we moved depending on the season and availability of food sources. no we can't replicate but we can do our best with what is currently available. i saw something on the discovery channel a couple years ago involving a tribe in one of the rain forest jungles. they had not been in contact w any outsiders before these producers. anyway, the wove these nets out of vines and then tied them to trees and proceeded to chase game into the net. they cooked them on spits over open fires. i do see how this would be an easy way for humans to 'hunt'. since pretty much anything can out run us, we need to be pretty creative.

When people started to keep and pen food animals as well as starting to plant marks the start of the neolithic people. After this point, skeletons got shorter and more disease showed up as well as a shorter life span.

From what I've read, the hunter gatherers in Europe didn't have to roam a whole lot because they were few in number and their food sources were large in number. Like anybody in temperate climates, they would have had to stock up some food supplies for winter but drying meats and vegetable matter doesn't take much technology to do. The theory, based on the remains and fossil records, is that so many animals moved thru France/Germany/Spain, etc. that they had good hunting by varying what they hunted based on the migrations of the ice age animals. Salmon runs yielded 1000's of fish for the taking and they dry easily. After spawning, anybody could just pick up the dying fish with their hands by the 1000's.

Barry Groves posits that the abundance of carb sources in late summer/early fall were for humans, like for bears, a trigger to put on fat for the lean winter.

The other thing to remember is different peoples lived in different periods at the same time. While the middle east peoples were developing domesticated wheat and domesticating animals (neolithic), peoples in Europe and northern Asia were still paleolithic hunter/gatherers. As the glaciers receded, the ice age animals started dying out and agriculture started moving north with the dwindling food supplies. An in more modern times, remote tribes remained living with the ancient ways. Those people had the same smarts we have, they just didn't need to change the way they lived.

There are paleolithic divisions amounting to old, middle and pre-neolithic based on the sophistication of tools but the food was similar. There's also a period when more northern peoples were still hunter/gatherers but moved from stone tools to metal tools which means they were technically no longer paleolithic but may have eaten the same way.

[fluffybear2]

Right--- it wasn't all cut and dry. Some people began rudimentary farming but because of drought or other reasons, abandoned it and went back to a hunter-gatherer existence, so the exact time-frame is blurred, esp. at the end of the paleolithic era and the beginning of the neolithic era. Even though humans probably didn't migrate to the America's until about 10,000-14,000 years ago, many of them lived a paleo existence well into what is termed the neolithic era. Some native Americans were hunter-gatherers long after some other native Americans began farming (Californian Indians compared to Pueblo for instance). Also, some like the Apache farmed during the warmer months and hunted & gathered during the cooler months.

[jem51]

i guess there were probably plenty of early 'farmers' who kept animals because that's what they ate. maybe that is a better explanation for the petrified poop w no vegetable residue. since this country is fairly young.

[Goldenrod]

Originally Posted by fluffybear2

One of the best shows I ever saw on this subject was Guns, Germs and Steel on PBS. It was based upon the book by the same name by Jarod Diamond. The book itself is very large and time consuming to read, although it would be a good addition to anyone's library if you are interested in that sort of thing.

YES! This was *fascinating.* Like you said, you can get it from Netflix - that's how I watched it. The series was two discs, and I only wish it was longer! I was mesmerized. I want to read the book someday, but you're right about it being very intimidating. It looks like a pretty nightmarish textbook, but having seen the documentary, I'm pretty sure Diamond presents everything in a "readable" way for paypeople.

Also...just wanted to say how much I LOVE this thread. (I just "found" it this morning.) I've been doing quite a lot of reading in the past year or so, and I'm just fascinated by this topic (nutritional anthropology, and what it tells us about what we're physiologically designed to eat). I seem to do much better with lots of salad veggies and full fat dairy (esp. cottage cheese), but I think depending on our geographical heritage, we may have evolved with slightly different tolerances for certain food groups. Maybe this is why some people so very well with dairy, and some don't -- same for slightly higher carb veggies and even oats and sweet potatoes.

In his book, Trick and Treat, Barry Groves has several places where he mentions how natural selection is also at work. Civilizations that adopted agriculture earlier may have had more time for people who, for whatever reason, had better tolerances for cereal grains and other starches to thrive, and for people who did better on mostly protein and fat to go by the wayside. (Not disappear, of course, but certainly decrease in number.)

Ex: "Southern Europeans may have a relatively low incidence of diabetes compared with other populations because they were among the first to adopt agriculture, and their diet has been high in carbohydrate for several thousand years. Thus their beta cells have been exposed to high-carbohydrate nutrition for longer than any other group and are consequently better adapted to such a diet." (p.218)

I don't know human history well enough to know how true it is that Southern Europeans were among the first to be agricultural, but the results make sense. And now that our diet is more carbohydrate (and SUGAR)-based, all of us who do *not* have genetic backgrounds favorable to high consumption of carbohydrates, are suffering obesity and other ill health effects.

Personally, I don't think *anyone* is suited for the amounts of sugars and starches most people in the U.S. eat, but it makes sense that there might be natural selection forcs at work. (We all know people who can eat all kinds of junk and simply not gain weight and not get sick...maybe they're just the ones whose genetic background has suited them to thrive in this horrible food environment? The rest of us are working with physiology from thousands and millions of years ago, and we do much better eating like our ancestors would have.)

I dunno...like I said, I'm simply fascinated by all this. I really recommend the Groves book. Really eye-opening. Probably some of the heaviest artillery I've ever read for sticking with a low-carbohydrate, relatively high-fat diet, not to mention getting out in the SUN, and not worrying so much about fiber, salt, and cholesterol.

"Our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived from one animal hunt, fishing expedition or egg-gathering foray to the next. There must have been times when food was scarce. That was out forebears' lives probably since the human species began. To tide them over these epriods of famine, their bodies evolved the ability to store energy as fat. Indeed, for as long as Homo sapiens has existed, our bodies' preferred source of fuel has been its stored fat. That is precisely why our bodies store it in taht way. If a low-carb, high-fat diet were really as unhealthy for humans as we care constantly told, we simply wouldn't be here now...There really hasn't been enough time for any significant genetic changes in our digestive, biochemical and endocrine systems. Genetically, we are basically the same now as our distant ancestors. In other words, we should eat today what our paleolithic ancestors of 10,000 years ago ate." (p. 236)

That being said, I have to agree with Fawn, about eating more antioxidant-rich veggies and fruits, because of the toxic environment we've created for ourselves, and that our ancestors didn't have to protect themselves against.

[weasel!]

Goldenrod, if you liked the PBS special Guns, Germs and Steel and it left you wanting more, then you'll LOVE the book. It's not dry and textbookish at all, but wonderfully written and engaging. It is large and it is time-consuming, but if the time is enjoyable, that's a good thing.

[fluffybear2]

Originally Posted by weasel!

Goldenrod, if you liked the PBS special Guns, Germs and Steel and it left you wanting more, then you'll LOVE the book. It's not dry and textbookish at all, but wonderfully written and engaging. It is large and it is time-consuming, but if the time is enjoyable, that's a good thing.

Exactly!