Paleo diet

[fluffybear2]

Hi,

After trying every other diet under the sun, I am doing the Paleo Diet. Essentially it means eating as much like our prehistoric ancestors as possible. Of course most of don't hunt, so essentially it means eating grass fed meat, organic fruits and veggies and no grains and no processed food. Its really pretty simple. No counting calories, no induction--just eating naturally.

[jacksmixedtape]

Pretty close to low carb! It should be easy for ya (unless you're of Northern European ancestry and love dairy!) Good luck with the Paleo plan!

[oyvey]

I'd be up for the Paleo Diet in an instant if it weren't for the no dairy part. Not a Northern European, but good gravy, I love the dairy. How was it giving it up?

[SashimiMark]

This is basically what I do. I no longer count carbs, and I never counted calories.

edit: just read.... no dairy? okay, nevermind. I love my raw milk, and it has done wonders for my health.

[Cassaroll]

I eat this way and I love it. I also manage my carbs pretty closely too though (you don't usually see me chowing down on a bunch of tubers).

[TinaBina]

This is pretty much how I eat, since giving up dairy a couple of months ago.

[weasel!]

My only argument with the Paleo Diet, as expressed by Loren Cordain, is his insistence on keeping fat low.

Dr. Michael Eades has the same beef with it. Otherwise, he and Cordain are pretty much in agreement. Check out Dr. Mike's blog and search for paleo for more info.

[TinaBina]

I ended up eating this way by default, I was searching for dairy free, soy free recipes and this way of eating fits the bill. I don't do low fat though. I use plenty of olive oil & coconut oil. Most of the recipes that I have found on line are not low fat either.

[Carleigh]

Originally Posted by weasel!

My only argument with the Paleo Diet, as expressed by Loren Cordain, is his insistence on keeping fat low.

Dr. Michael Eades has the same beef with it. Otherwise, he and Cordain are pretty much in agreement. Check out Dr. Mike's blog and search for paleo for more info.

I think Cordain's was the first I read on this topic - didn't make it past the first few chapters. I prefer Neanderthin by Ray Audette and Dr. Mike seems to approve; wrote the Foreword!

[Cassaroll]

Originally Posted by weasel!

My only argument with the Paleo Diet, as expressed by Loren Cordain, is his insistence on keeping fat low.

Dr. Michael Eades has the same beef with it. Otherwise, he and Cordain are pretty much in agreement. Check out Dr. Mike's blog and search for paleo for more info.

Oh yeah, I do NOT eat low fat. HELL no. I eat plenty of oil each day. Protein by itself is just NOT filling and makes you sick. That's where they get the term "rabbit starvation."

There are a lot of people who do paleo that promote higher fat. I mean, that honestly makes more sense to me. I know that our ancestors didn't cut fat off of meat, that's for sure.

[Cassaroll]

Just read CherryCola's post. Ditto on Neanderthin, it's much more accurate.

[SnowWhite]

My cosmetic surgeon recommends eating very similar to this.

[SnowWhite]

Paleo (Neanderthin) introduction

here is a good link....with dairy options!

[Carleigh]

Originally Posted by SnowWhite

Paleo (Neanderthin) introduction

here is a good link....with dairy options!

Thanks for that SW. Really informative link!!

[fawn]

I read neanderthin years ago but don't remember this so I'll ask here! How do we know our ancestors didnt drink raw milk of wild game? ie: buffalo, goats, etc?

[Tesaje]

Originally Posted by fawn

I read neanderthin years ago but don't remember this so I'll ask here! How do we know our ancestors didnt drink raw milk of wild game? ie: buffalo, goats, etc?

The theory is that it takes domestication to have an animal stand still for milking so pre-agriculture, pre-domestication, they could only get milk from a lactating animal they had killed. You could assume the paleolithic people did use a full udder from a killed animal but it wouldn't be much intake compared to the bulk of their diet.

Neolithic people started agriculture and animal domestication at varying times, so they may have used dairy regularly. But then neolithic people were shorter in stature and their bones show more disease than paleolithic peoples in the same area. The paleolithic eating theory is that they had a more natural diet and it was the diet we evolved to eat, rather than the 5000 - 10000 year old agricultural diet.

Of course we don't really know how old domestication of farm animals really is. But everything I have read calls farming stone-age people Neolithic and hunter-gatherer stone age people Paleolithic.

[weasel!]

I have what I think is a novel take on the question of ancestral eating.

My theory comes from what I've read of the Aquatic Ape hypothesis. (Google for info, but ignore aquaticape dot org as the rantings of this guy who for some reason hates the theory and trolls the Internet for mentions of it, to criticize.)

When we think of pre-agricultural humans, we tend to describe scenarios involving them rummaging around on land, foraging and hunting.

However, if you think about it, the thing that marks any habitation of humans, in whatever phase of technological and societal complexity, is the centrality of a prominent water source. Humans (unlike many other mammals) need to be right by free water to live. Look at a map. Where are the cities? Today, we can spread out more, because we've figured out how to bring the rivers to us, in the form of vast municipal water systems and indoor plumbing. We can only leave the water if we take the water with us, whether in skin sacks or water towers.

For some reason, though, in discussions of ancestral human food, we just don't put food from the water in a central place in the equation. Consider: If you were out in the middle of nowhere and needed to survive, you would find water, very quickly. You'd need it before, and more frequently than food. And in that water, you'd find things to eat far easier to catch and kill than anything on land. Except, of course, for bugs. And our primal ancestors were insectivores.

It makes sense to me that fish and other water critters are a missing food link between insects and big land animals. From the water is where we got enough protein and Omega 3 to grow brains big enough to figure out how to kill the animals we need considerable intelligence to kill. We don't have the teeth and claws and speed to hunt a gazelle. We have the brains to do it.

For instance, I think our first tools were more likely rocks for smashing and prying open shelled creatures, rather than clubs for running after game. (Or spear tips and arrows.) You're a human. If you were out by a stream looking for something to eat, with no existing artifacts, which would you do first? Pick up that handy, slow-moving clam? Or chase down that rabbit?

I think that a stage in our evolution during which an aquatic environment was central is the key to why Omega-3 is so important, why our brains are so big (fish is brain food, as they say!), how we got bipedal (straightening out through wading and swimming, like the aquatic mammals and unlike any other primate, none of which, by the way, require proximity to free water to live), and how we got smart enough to develop the tools necessary for humans to stray from the waterside and hunt and forage on land.

Also consider that one of the cultures most-often cited as thriving without any plant food at all is the Inuit, who lived primarily on fish.

That's my theory, what do people think?

[Tesaje]

I think there is a lot of sense in that theory. Fresh water access would have been crucial to paleo man and it stand to reason that fish would have been big in his diet.

Balanced with that theory is the fossil records showing many animal bones with knife cuts on them indicating paleo man did eat the larger animals with frequency. But then again, there would be nothing left of insect eating for us to verify that. Some sea side remains do show large collections of shells indicating eating seafood. There are far fewer of these left to us, probably because shoreside sites are more susceptible to damage than desert or cave sites.

If we step back to known neolithic aboriginal hunter-gatherer peoples, we find a wide variety of food stuffs depending on wht is avaialbe to them in their area. The Inuit, as an example do eat a lot of fish, but they also eat a lot of seals and caribou. They eat a LOT of fat. In a more benign environment in the Pac NW, those Native Americans ate a lot of salmon that they dried to have for the whole year. They also ate a lot of berries, rabbits, and small animals with deer when they could get them.

Most of these people seem to eat insects as a snack when they can find them. Grubs and other insects without hard shells or poisen in them have a lot of protein and omega 3 fats in them so they are technically nutritious. While I don't have the nerve to try one, I've often wondered if they would taste similar to shrimp or crawdads - those shellfish sure do look like insects!

Certainly when we look at aboriginal peoples, fish of all sorts is a common dietary staple and learning to catch them is a necessary skill for every child to learn - with or without tools (the famous tickling a fish to catch it). Probably one of the earliest tools was a rock in a slingshot. With skill, this can be a very effective killing tool for small animals and even fish.

One of the pieces of of the puzzle is that the ice age environment was rich with both animal and vegetable food sources. There were a lot of them and few of humans. There is no place left on this earth that resembles that environment - it is long gone. It is thought that paleo man really didn't have to work all that hard to find his/her supper. But probably, they feasted and then went lean until the next big catch. Interim periods would be filled with vegetable and berry finds, insects, small animals, and lots of fish. We don't know, but the big game diet may have been the lesser of the food stuffs in their diets. They probably did like the NA and dried vast quantities of meat and other food stuffs against the leaner winters and to preserve a bounty.

Interesting to try to figure out.

[fawn]

And my biggest problem with this way of eating is that most who are desperate to lose will nosh on conventional factory farmed meats without consideration of the quality of foods they are consuming rather the focus as weight loss. Rarely do I hear omega 3:6 balance and therefore I believe paleo folks on this particular board aren't doing the average dieter any justice.

I have my own personal beliefs on the need for a high anti-oxidant diet as our ancestors were never exposed to the environmental toxins we face as a society today.

So I would ask when promoting a plan as this, take all factors into consideration.

[weasel!]

Just so everyone is clear, personally I am not promoting a specific WOE with my comments in this thread. I'm musing and theorizing on what I consider an important avenue of inquiry.

[Tooter]

Originally Posted by weasel!

Just so everyone is clear, personally I am not promoting a specific WOE with my comments in this thread. I'm musing and theorizing on what I consider an important avenue of inquiry.

Weasel, I thought your Theory was very interesting, indeed. It makes a lot of sense.

Personally, I am eating a lot more fish these days (Salmon, Mackerel, Sardines, Halibut, Kippers). That was just from learning about more recent history.
I am of Scotch/Irish background. Now, when we think of the Irish, we think of Potatoes. Potatoes were introduced to Ireland and since they were cheap and easy to grow...They started growing and eating them. Then we have the great potato Famine...etc...

Anyways, the Scotch/Irish (before all that) Ate a lot of fatty fish. Lots of good fishing around there. I Love "Nova". Nova is a Scottish smoked Salmon.
I realized My Ancestors Ate a lot of fatty fish. Now that my fat intake is up with Good fats and Fish fats...I really feel fantastic.

So, I found your Theory very interesting. Yes, we tend to think of Caveman with a Club, making a big kill...But I think you are correct. They would have "camped" around a water source, eaten more fish, had more plant sources to choose from, had a lot of small game kills, and would have made the occasional "Big Kill".

[weasel!]

Yes, fish has more fat than lean animals running around on land like deer, rabbit, and so forth. And here's another thing I just thought of. If you haven't invented fire or knives yet, a fish is a lot easier for a human to eat than a land animal. You don't have to cook it to make it soft enough, or use a blade (even a stone blade) to cut it open. Even today, raw seafood is a delicacy, like sushi and oysters. I think fish is the missing historical dietary link, when people are looking back to figure out what our natural diet was.

The Scotch/Irish connection is interesting. There was no population problem there before the potato came in. It must have been a better balanced ecosystem all around. I've read that the traditional Irish diet included a lot of sea vegetable, also.

[Tooter]

Originally Posted by weasel!

Yes, fish has more fat than lean animals running around on land like deer, rabbit, and so forth. And here's another thing I just thought of. If you haven't invented fire or knives yet, a fish is a lot easier for a human to eat than a land animal. You don't have to cook it to make it soft enough, or use a blade (even a stone blade) to cut it open. Even today, raw seafood is a delicacy, like sushi and oysters. I think fish is the missing historical dietary link, when people are looking back to figure out what our natural diet was.

The Scotch/Irish connection is interesting. There was no population problem there before the potato came in. It must have been a better balanced ecosystem all around. I've read that the traditional Irish diet included a lot of sea vegetable, also.

Yes, and here is another interesting thing to think about...

When you think of IRISH, you think of potatoes and you also think of alcoholics. CO-WINKY-DINK? I think not. I think after they brought in potatoes as a "Staple" in their diet, it truly upset the "balance" in their bodies. Candida/Yeast...A lack of healthy bacteria? I think so. Just my "Thoughts".

From My understanding, The Scotch/Irish ate a lot of fish, Small game and the type of grains were the Whole Oats and Veggies. They were a healthy people, the picture of health, before the Potato craze came about. (Weston A. Price has pictures of Traditional eating Scotch/Irish and then pictures of people who ate the potatoes and western fare---Huge difference) The turn to Potatoes, was for Monetary reasons (The potato was Cheap and easy to grow and use). Remember the Potato Famine? That happened because they put all their eggs in one basket (with their health and their crops). They picked a potato breed that was very easy to grow, it also was very easily infested with mold and bacteria. They had bad weather, the crops rotted and the people starved.

That's Westernization for ya, eh?

[Tooter]

Maybe it would be a neat idea to start a thread in here on "Traditional Eating".

[fawn]

Originally Posted by Tooter

Maybe it would be a neat idea to start a thread in here on "Traditional Eating".

Now I would dig that!

Vesna, your contributions are always fascinating. I'm glad to see you again.

[jem51]

i really think those paleo folks did a lot of scavenging. they found some petrified poop in oregon a year or two ago and found there was no vegitation residue. there is even vegitation here in winter, at least the wild type. i do see the aquatic ape side of this discussion. fresh water, a necessity.

[LJB]

I think I'll stick with my coach supervised plan. Back to business tomorrow!

[fawn]

they found some petrified poop in oregon

Now how in the world did we N. Californians miss this news?

Oh Jem, that was a gem!

[jem51]

i don't necessarily totally disagree w cordain but choose not to eat low fat. 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. the other thing i like about cordain is that he attempt to stay current. i think his plan is a good one but i love audette and still have my neanderthin book. i consider it a classic. i wish ray was more available for us to scrutinize...what! he has a life??!!

[fawn]

i don't necessarily totally disagree w cordain but choose not to eat low fat. 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.

precisely. Todays conventional beef as you know carries no omega 3 fatty acids also which is a biggie for me.....