Paleo-Diet - anyone here on it?

You 2 Roberts seem to be speculating more than Byron and I. Byron's using direct empirical evidence, and I'm drawing off of the discoveries and insights of seasoned archeological researchers; such as Loren Cordain and S. Boyd Eaton.

If you ask me, you guys--in this instance--have a case of the Golden Years complex. This concept is something that Michael Shermer spoke to well in a chapter of his book, Borderlands of Science; the mere title is awfully informative and relevant ...

The Beautiful People Myth: Why the Grass is Always Greener in the Other Century

Ed

Post 21

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:23am

Robert, Robert, and Ed,

I agree with Ed. Robert Winfield's hypothesis is good, but it is only speculation without evidence. This is why I asked Robert Malcolm for his research sources. My direct experience, not only from hunting in North America, but in South America, Africa and Asia, is different from your speculation. I have hunted and know men who have hunted in places and with methods that have no place in the worse nightmares of PETA.

Robert Winfield speculated that our Homo Sapien ancestors were stronger than us, and that strength can compensate for their lack of modern weapons and technology. How? Why did strength breed itself out? You would think that the stronger men are the men more likely to pass on their genes. Why did they not pass on to us? Yes, they lived more active lifestyles than the majority of urban men who work 9-to-5 in an office job. However, my friends and I in the grunts live an active lifestyle too, and we learnt from decades of scientific research into proper exercise and nutrition. I can kick the crap out of any Fred Flinstone, with or without a knife (even after doing 80 knuckle push-ups for warm-up).

Robert also speculated that our primitive ancestors hunted in open grassland. That may be true in parts of Africa and America. What about everywhere else like in Asia and South America? I have hunted in terrain like that and I can tell you that open grassland complicates the problem. As strong and fast as our ancestors were, I doubt they can outrun a pack of animals in the open grassland. Stalking animals, as you put it, is a long, painstaking process. Everything from the proper approach, to avoiding going downwind, demands hours of patience. The same patience demanded by hunting for sport in the woods. Even after the hunt, there is so much that needs to be done to prepare the game for transport over long distances (unlike us, they did not have ice coolers and 4WD trucks). Not to mention cooking these animals without the benefit of a gas grill or barbeque pit!

This is my direct experience. If there is a body of research that shows our ancestors really had a different experience, that will convince me to change my mind about cavemen having as much or more leisure time than we do.

Post 22

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:30am

Robert Winfield wrote: "Trust a medic to think up the surgical answer to the problem, you don't spend much time around artillerymen do you? ;-)"

I know you were joking, and I don't mind, but I have seem (and smelled) death and destruction by the thousands in places like Fallujah. After what both sides did there, the bodies lying all over the place were unrecognizable. I don't lose sleep over it. It is a fact of war. But I'm no stranger to less than subtle methods of killing.

Post 23

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:37am

Both Jane Jacobs' SYSTEMS OF SURVIVAL, and Elayne Morgan's DESCENT OF WOMEN, and other of her works, were source material..... along with others...

Post 24

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:16am

Jane Jacobs? Isn't she a liberal who writes books about urban planning?

Post 25

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:53am

Byron,

Sorry to intrude. Just a parentheses.

I can kick the crap out of any Fred Flinstone, with or without a knife (even after doing 80 knuckle push-ups for warm-up).

LOL

Shit. I'm glad you're on our side. You sound like a good man to have around. There are still some Ally Oops among us...

Michael

Post 26

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:15am

Jacobs' first book, DEATH AND LIFE OF GREAT AMERICAN CITIES was a work against the urban planning,,,,,,,
(Edited by robert malcom on 4/28, 10:16am)

Post 27

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:23am

Jane Jacobs' books The Death and Life of Great American Cities and The Economy of Cities clearly showed the folly of urban planning. Without any formal economic training she understood and explained why the mixed use resulting from private property and spontaneous order (not her term) produced vibrant and safe(r) cities.

Her books are well worth reading.

Post 28

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:59am

Robert, Rick,

I will read this lady's work to see where you're coming from. I am not sure what evidence she has that primitive men had more leisure time than modern men, and from my own experience I am suspicious of such arguments, but I will keep an open mind.

Michael,

Thank you, but I was trying to be humble. I work with men who are living weapons of mass destruction.

Post 29

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 11:03am

Oh goody, one of those threads where I have to search everything I post for triple meanings... First up - an abject apology.

Bryon, I merely wanted to point out that I thought you were applying your empirical hunting knowledge out of context. The quip, in retrospect, was tasteless crap and I apologise and withdraw it without reservation. I had no intention of demeaning your time and experience in the service of making the world safer for thoughtless cunts like myself.

My aim - sorely inaccurate - was to point out that I thought your thinking about how hard it would have been to hunt in the old days was one-dimensional. There were no national borders around the time this thread discusses. No game wardens, hunting preserves or property rights, no moral dilemmas about killing a lot of animals or leaving wounded animals or stealing the kills made by predators that you could intimidate with superior numbers and a handful of rocks. Thus early humans could do things that modern day hunters wouldn't be permitted to do or even think of doing.

For instance your game-hunting experience probably didn't include this:

"Sites that provide the clearest evidence of early hunting include Boxgrove, England, where about 500,000 years ago people trapped a great number of large game animals between a watering hole and the side of a cliff and then slaughtered them." (see here for the full passage)

I�ll write more later when I have time to visit the library and properly revisit the lessons I learned when I last took a University course in human evolution�

Until then it would be helpful to all however if you guys went here and decided to define your terms for the argument. "Paleo-diet" & "Fred Flintstone" doesn't accurately define the context that we are discussing.

Which genus and species are we talking about? The genus Homo or the genus Australopithecus or both or select species within one or the other?

What part of the world are we talking about? Africa, Asia, cool temperate regions, warmer tropical ones?

Are we are talking about the fully bipedal humans or the transitional species that were partly bipedal and partly quadrupedal?

Species that, like modern chimps, were strong enough [judging from forensic assessments of skeletal structures that I will dig up as soon as I can get to the library] to uproot small trees with their bare-hands as part of mating displays.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 4/28, 11:06am)

Post 30

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 11:23am

Robert Winfield,

Your apology was not necessary, because I did understand you did not intend it to be anything more than a harmless joke, but I accept it in the good spirit it was offered.

I will be the first to admit my arguments were based on first-hand experience, not academic research, and that first-hand experience may have limitations that a research study does not. I will read this Jane Jacobs book Robert Malcolm recommended.

By the way, when I said "Fred Flinstone" and expressed my skepticism of how easy hunting was "back in the day", I meant the early Homo Sapiens, who should not be significantly different from us physically.

(Edited by Byron Garcia on 4/28, 11:27am)

Post 31

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 11:59am

OK no harm done then.

If you wanted to look at how Homo Sapiens hunted then I would recommend reading anthropological books that describe hunter gatherer societies like the African Massai, Australian Aboringinies, American Indian and New Zealand Maori. These were studied in the last few centuries first hand and thus are probably the best place to gain in-sight about what it was like back in the day.

For instance, as I understand from looking at local Kansas Museum exhibits, individual Indian tribes lived quite different life-styles. Depending on the local/regional conditions some tribes developed semi-permanent dwellings and established farms etc. While others were more nomadic followed the game herds & hunted more.

In the case of the Maori (prior to obtaining muskets from European whalers and traders) they were using stone-age weapons (e.g. wood/bone/stone tools). They had domesticated dogs and developed quite advanced sea-faring vessels but that was about it. They had no knowledge of the extraction, purification and shaping of metal and the major impetus for gaining better weapons (as far as I know) seemed to be inter-tribal warfare rather than a need to improve their ability to hunt & kill game.

Looking at societies with no need/experience of warfare (i.e. the Aboriginies), they never seemed to upgrade their tools and thus this was the basis for my speculation about "a flint edged weapon in the hands of a primitive hominid [being] something to be scared of [if you were an animal]."

Given that you were talking about the more developed humans my comments about them not living in forests are wrong or - at least - incomplete. In a forest there is more to eat than just big game. There is little game, birds, insects, grubs, berries, streams with fish etc. So you can get your food quite quickly and still have time for social interaction. Getting a variety of food is much easier if you live in a tribe and pool your labour (something that is self-evident to todays human being).

The need to hunt game for protein and fat was probably stronger in the cooler climates and thus in this context your comments about how long it would take to hunt are probably right on the money. But in cooler climates meat can be preserved longer, so you don't need to hunt as often.

The right & wrong in this boils down to context.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 4/28, 12:48pm)

Post 32

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 12:40pm

Byron,

Perhaps I should clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding. I was merely picking up on the name 'Jane Jacobs' and correcting your notion that she was in favor or urban planning. To my knowledge she wrote nothing about primitive man other than to discuss how and why cities originated.

Her book Systems of Survival is subtitled "A dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics".

BTW, I find that Robert Malcom's posts are often too cryptic to really understand what he's talking about.

Post 33

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 12:53pm

Rick,

And here I thought it was just me who thought they were cryptic! I'll read the book anyway. I was perusing the Amazon.com reviews and, Encino Man or not, it sounds like she has an interesting thesis about cities. I am into real estate investing so it should be interesting for me.

Post 34

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 3:39pm

Hi, Ed:

I completely agree that a muscular 200# man burns more calories than a 200# flabby man, because muscle burns more cals.

I completely agree that your body burns more calories digesting 200 cal of steak, as compared to 200 cal of ice cream.

I was simply attempting to focus people on the primary of weight loss: that burning more calories than what is taken is is the cardinal rules of weight loss. I do not think the study you cited refutes this truism.

I agree that, due to metabolism and insulin swings, certain macronutrients contribute to satiety and consistent energy levels.

But at the end of the day, all the fad diets are smoke and mirrors to ther extent that they ignore the basics.

Post 35

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 10:50pm

Scott, I agree that most folks are missing the big picture--and trying too many fad things.

A great question though, is of where to place the blame for this mess. I blame conventional weight loss businesses (Weight Watchers, etc), contemporary academics, and government--but mostly government (for failing the public; by offering slanted advice meant to line the pockets of Big Food--at the expense of public health). I'll say more about this below, but let's get back to YOUR point ...

The Energy Balance Equation (energy in - energy out = energy balance) still holds--hell, it's a law of physics!--it's just that protein revs the metabolism and nobody admits this. Protein, without exercise, increases your "energy out." This fact, in combination with the fact of lean mass losses on reducing diets, makes protein a preferred macronutrient for folks who want to lose weight (fat) and look great, on a persisting basis.

The lean loss really is an issue--up to 2-thirds of the weight lost on VLCDs (very low calorie diets) is from lean mass, not from fat. This sets folks up for rebound (the "yo-yo" diet effect). Something that could probably be prevented by increasing protein dramatically (at the expense of carbs and fat)--though you won't hear that from Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, the USDA, the ADA, the AMA, etc.

The $64,000 question is: Why don't we hear more about protein? If protein is so good for dieting, then why do all these agencies seem to speak with the same voice, unanimously overlooking the potential benefit of higher protein diets, unanimously shouting the calorie-is-a-calorie bromide from the rooftops of ivory towers?

I find 2 good (actually, bad) reasons for them to be quiet about the relative superiority of this macronutrient: animal rights and profiteering. You can't get a high protein diet without animal food sources--you can't get a high profit margin with animal food sources (farm value of corn syrup is just 4%--a 2500% mark-up when sold at retail prices; while farm value of eggs, poultry, and beef is 50-60% of the retail price--a 70-100% mark-up at retail). Other, similar examples abound.**

Another aspect however, is feasibiliity. I realize that if everyone, right now, were to switch to a caveman diet, then millions worldwide would die, within a year, for lack of food (the production just isn't there). Most (>50%) of the world gets most (>50%) of their calories from grains such as corn, rice, and wheat. While this is an evolutionarily-unprecedented move--we are, for the moment, stuck with it.

**Another, similar example: Bread companies refine the hell out of grain and call it Wonder Bread. The USDA (universally stupid dumb asses)--an organization beholden to two parties, not one (on the one hand, the public; and, on the other hand, the special interests of food companies)--ignores data citing up to 80% losses of various nutrients such as magnesium, and places all breads equally in the base of the Food Guide Pyramid.

Now Wonder Joe, who gets half of all his calories from Wonder Bread (because the government recommended that) goes to the hospital for heart trouble. And what is it that they give him for heart trouble? Intravenous magnesium.

So, the food companies take nutrients out of food (and the government signs off on that). Then, when folks follow the government's advice on what to eat--they get subclinical deficiencies of the things that their body needs to run right. Then, they go off to the hospital where those same, simple nutrients are pumped back into them at 1000 times their "natural" cost.

Big Food gets us sick, Big Medicine cures us (at hundreds and hundreds of times the NECESSARY cost of cure), and Big Gov signs off on it all (receiving kick-backs and what-not). Central control of public health is a sham racketeering job if I've ever seen one. It is rare to have such a pivotal, policy-making government agency (USDA) beholden to the public AND to special interests (many other countries have systems that are more objective, transparent, and accountable).

Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of free markets, but not of the meddlings of the FDA and USDA--which, unwaveringly, side with special interests at the expense of public health.

Ed

Post 36

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 7:26pm

Ed, I often enjoy your posts, but sometimers, I do not agree with them.

But I both agree with and enjoyed your last!

I have used Atkins for weight loss.

Before there was an Atkins, the bodybuilders of the 30's, 40's 50's and 60's used restricted carb, high protien diets to maintian 'contet shape' virtually year-round! It works.

Post 37

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 8:05am

Whew!

Scott, I'm sure glad you agree. I was going stir-crazy trying to think of all the examples that I may have had to marshall (FDA "delay" on folic acid--1000s of deformed babies, FDA "delay" on post-MI aspirin--100,000s unnecessary deaths, tryptophan, ephedra, etc) in order to effectively communicate my perspective.

Scott, I really appreciate your sharp mind and your strong will to get things straight (in arguments)--perhaps the 2 most important characteristics that humans can possess.

Ed

Post 38

Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 9:32am

Very interesting thread here. I need to shed some wieght and I like most have tried many types of diets, with the same results. Not only did this thread help me to understand why that was but more importantly that there's also some tinkering going on with advise people recieve from our government. Thanks to all in this thread, I'm finding myself already "gravitating" toward a more logical diet (I don't like the word "diet" either), but I do like "gravitate".

Post 39

Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 7:16pm