Effect of agriculture

[Sheldon]

I am a low-carb advocate and practitioner, so my question is purely informational. I've read the material which states man's genetic code was set long before he started to farm and devour grains, beans, and the like. This material also states that man's health declined with the advent of farming 10,000 years ago. But I cannot reconcile that with the volumes of evidence showing that after we began farming, the human population grew dramatically and life expectancy increased. Of course these trends have continued ever since. In the twentieth century, life expectancy increased more than in all the previous centuries combined. Is there a paradox to be resolved? Why did these indicators of progress take off just as we increased the carbohydrates in our diet?

Thanks.

Sheldon

[Talon]

I had a similiar question awhile back, Doreen made alot of sense. See this link:

Life Expectancy (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49772&highlight=life+expectancy)

[Sheldon]

Thanks, Talon. That is interesting. But my question is slightly different, since I am referring to thousands of years ago, before there was much of what we think of as "public health."

Sheldon

[Sheldon]

After doing a little research, here's what I've come up with. Average life expectancy doesn't begin to increase until about 1400. Population doesn't start growing until about 1600. It's fairly flat before then, though there are many ups and downs. Obviously, this is well after man begins farming, so it cannot be farming that creates the positive changes. Something else does that. "Public health" is surely one answer. The fall in infant mortality is another big reason.

Sheldon

[captxray]

As an anthropology major in my undergraduate studies many years ago I was facinated by this very subject. After Man and Dog (a dangerous combo!) had managed to kill off all of the big game animals that sustained human life for hundreds of thousands of years, there was no alternative but to find something else...fast. Hence, monoculture agriculture developed rather quickly and took over as Man's main food source in many parts of the world. Population quickly grew, astoundingly fast as men and women were grouped into small communities that gradually became larger communities as property suddenly became a commodity. The average grain eater...even today...produces offspring about once every 11-14 months...wonder where the population problems are coming from? The average hunter-gatherer produces offspring about once every five to seven years. Wonder where they all went? Young grain-eating girls mature into first menses..now, on the average around 11-12 years old...some are starting menses at 7-8 years old in the last 50 years! The average hunter-gatherer girl doesn't even start her menses until she's between 17-21! GRAINS! They have properties that are causing our children to mature before their time and it's getting worse as new strains are being produced with more starch and more of evrything else. No wonder the population explosion happened! Life expectancy went way down soon after the advent of agricutlure and didn't start to go on the rise like you said, after there were some better public health practices. After taking into account the dangers inherent in the lifestyle of a hunter-gatherer (ie. being eaten by a large cat, injuries, etc.) we find that they had a life expectancy of about 70 years...even back then. But the agricultural folks int eh city-states went down to about 37 years. If you want more, I could go on and on...probably not, huh?

[Sheldon]

Fascinating! Feel free to PM me more on this, or sources I can read. As I understand it, population grew rapidly not because the birth rate increased (women rarely had all the children they were capable of having), but because the death rate fell. That's true to this day: in other words, the growing population is good news since it represents a (temporary) triumph over death. Keep in mind, also, that the rate of growth has been falling for a long time, and even former alarmists say population will stabilize at a lower level than expected.

I don't worry about population growth because if we have individual freedom and free economies, we will solve problems just as we solved them in the past: through human ingenuity, which is unlimited. See Julian Simon's large volume of writing for details.

Sheldon

[captxray]

When I read things like free economies it reminds me of a "free market economy" and I just wonder...are you a "kindred spirit"?
Anyway, as I was taught, the birth rate did go up in cities after that advent of monoculture agriculture due to the properties of the diet they were consuming. However, the death rate went up, too, due to being packed so closely together (disease), and the advent of a new group of killers caused by a grain-based, dairy-based diet, and possibly a diet dependant upon the deadly nightshade family, ie., potatoes, tomatoes, egg plant, peppers, etc...a compromised immune system in the form of the body trying to kill itself...autoimmune diseases such as arthritis, rhuematoid arthritis, MS, Lupus, Obesity, some forms of heart disease, and the grand daddy of them all...DIABETES. Before agriculture we do not see any traces of any of these diseases in the fossil record, but they become rampant early on in the fossil record of city dwellers, who quite naturally were dependant upon agriculture. The birth rate sky-rocketed and DEATH stalked the streets of early villages and cities in the above forms, and in complications caused from childbirth...women weren't as easily able to ward off many of the problems caused by childbirth due to their diet...again! This is still true, today. Of course, childbirth has always been extremely dangerous to the health and welfare of women and children, even without compromised immune systems and weakened bodies. The death rate really went up in the Industrial Revolution as white flour made its' appearance. So did the birth rate. White flour (pure gluey starch) and the birth rate seemed to go hand in hand at this time in the Western Countries. Also, in the rice- based, soy-based economies as hulled rice and soy products became a staples in the cities...(pure gluey starch! and other stuff that our bodies don't like such as alkaloids, etc.), and a growing dependance upon milk-based products, world-wide (another form of pure glue ala ELMER'S).
Now, we come to the present day. We now have modern medicine, which is surely helping to prolong life, no question. Better health practices, such as washing our hands with soap and water to keep the germs out of our insides, modern food preserving which keeps the bad bugs from entering our intestines, etc. We also have the growth rate slowing in the Western Countries due to societal changes and awareness factors, as well as economies which have caused woemn to enter the work force in huge numbers. However, in the Third World, I am of the understanding that the birth rate is climbing at alarming rates with no end in sight.

[Sheldon]

captxray--

I am an admirer of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Moreover, Julian Simon has shown empirically that while progress, such as the growth of cities, brings problems, human ingenuity invariably solves them and leaves us better off than before the problems emerged. Indeed, in 1800 the world could barely support a billion people. Today 6 billion live longer, healthier, and more prosperous lives than ever before. And its getting better in most places. The developing world, with some exceptions, has been catching up at a dramatic rate.

A good deal of entrepreneurial freedom, however, is a precondition for this process to work. Institutions matter a lot.

The fertility rate has been falling in the developing world since the 1960s. But so has the death rate, which is why population continues to grow. But it is stabilizing and will not hit what used to be the UN's top projections.

Can you refer me to some reading on subjects youi've written about here?

Sheldon

[captxray]

Thanks for that input on ferttility and death rates. I agree with you about the naysayers of the world...especially the UN. I think that human ingenuity is the key to our own problems...always has been...that's why we have a bigger brain than anybody else on the planet...we are an ingenious lot, we humans. If the space program had been allowed to continue in the early 80s we would already have been on Mars and our technology would have leapt another few light years ahead of where we are right now. But, short-sightedness has also been a particular human trait. Nothing drove our ingenuity engine like the space program and attempting to be first on the Moon. So many benefits that so many people are unwilling to admit regarding food, microchips, computers (that now solve complex problems that took years to solve in the past), clothing, fabrics, air filtering systems, heat resistance, you name it, the list could fill up books. I will have to get back to you with a list of sources...it's at another location which I will go to tonight. Have you looked at paleolithic diet.com ? Some good stuff, there to start off with. Will psot some of my sources later for you.

[Sheldon]

I assume the paleos did not eat butter. But many dietary-fat advocates say butter is good for you? What should we make of that? That agricultural man came up with something that fit his genetic makeup?

Sheldon

[captxray]

Every once in a while even a dolt can have a good idea! Although, I question whether butter is THAT good for you, given the fact that cows eat grain (much of it genetically unsound for human consumption or too high in chemicals that it is considered unfit for human consumption) in copious amounts each day. Most dairy cattle are not fed much in the way of sillage (which ruminants are supposed to eat...they are not designed to eat grain any more than humans are), although some are actually allowed to roam on the plain and eat grass...but around where I live, they all reside on big piles of cow dung and dirt, eat grains , and look extremely bored. Of course, to give credit to that willy beast, the COW, how much intellectual activity goes on behind those big vacant eyes, anyway? I have read a number of newer articles about butter fat from big production dairies. It has rather high concentrations of some of the more dangerous fatty acids, just like the meat of commercially fattened (feed lot) cattle that we get in the supermarket (Omega 6 transfatty acids, to name one group). Butter fat from Ol' Bessie, on the back forty of your local farm is very different than the stuff we buy in the supermarket from COW # 2578 of So and So Dairy in Los Angeles. I don't eat any dairy...nada...zilch...nothin'...for that very reason. I trim most of the fat from my steak, even though I could eat all I wanted and still lose weight. I probably sound like I'm a paranoid who'se worried about some COW conspiracy, but believe me, there is a major difference from the beef I ate as a kid that we raised from calves on our ranch, and the stuff that is USDA Grade A from Safeway. My wife's family owns feed lots in Montana. I wouldn't eat that meat with a ten foot fork! I was in Idaho, recently. We passed by a feed lot that was at least five miles in length along the Snake River and, aside from the stench that those poor beasts were living in, standing on piles of their own poop, fifteen feet high, what were they eating...almost EXCLUSIVELY, for the last two weeks of their lives? GRAIN... highly unnatural grain, too. Nope, I'll do my hunting and gathering as far removed from the big supermarket as humanly possible in these modern times.

[captxray]

Here is a partial listing of some of my sources, Sheldon. I have a number of more, if you're interested.

Articles on Transfatty Acids/Cancer
Ames, B.N ., "Ranking Possible Carcinogenic Hazards." Science 236 (April 17, 1987), 271-80.
________, "Paleolithic Diet, Evolution and Carcinogens." Science 240 (December 18, 1987), 1633-34.
________, "Carcinogenic Risk Estimation." Science 240 (May 20, 1988), 1043-47. A series of articles by one of the foremost authorities cancer and its causes. He shows how common foods can be even a larger threat of cancer than some of the chemicals labeled as causing it.
Rosenberg, Steven A., "Adoptive Immunotherapy for Cancer." Scientific American (May 1990), 62-69.
Cohen, Leonard A., "Diet and Cancer." Scientific American November 1987), 42-48.
Ascherio, A., and W.C. Willet, "Health Effects of Trans-fatty Acids." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 66: 4 Suppl. (October 1997), 1006S-1010S.

I'll send you some article references on Diabetes and Autoimmune Diseases next, if you want them. There are also books on the subject. I'm just listing my article sources. Would you rather read books about certain things? I have a list of books, too. I could send references on the Immune System, prehistoric diets, Dairy and Nutrition, the Advent of Agriculture, Fertility, Bodybuilding...Just let me know and I'll see what I have.

[kypraia]

you have a fascinating discussion going on in here! I often wonder whether we could convince even the staunchest low-fat/low-calorie dieter to switch to low-carb if we could force him to sit through a lecture in paleoanthropology. I'm a classicist but I've worked on archaeological excavations and dealt with paleolithic and mesolithic materials as well as neolithic (agricultural) and there is so much evidence that the worst disaster ever to befall the human race was Agriculture. I'm sure you know about this, but for anyone else reading this, I've had some thoughts about these subjects:

The reason population increased after the advent of agriculture is due to one single reason: a dramatic increase in the need for labor. As far as the statistics about how often hunter/gatherer women and agricultural women give birth go, they do not explain the reason for it. The reason is that hunters/gatherers rely on mobility, flexibility, and cohesion to procure food and protect themselves. Too many young children at once is dangerous. They self-regulate their populations. There is a great excess of leisure time in hunter/gatherer populations, and they do not need an extra workforce. With the advent of agriculture, leisure time disappeared. Children have always provided a secure and free workforce for the family, and it was at this time that children began to be reared as farm helpers. Population grew even though disease increased, sanitation was nonexistent (hunters/gatherers had excellent sanitation practices: they left when it got dirty), and the increasing desire for material acquisition caused internal strife.

One theory (I don't agree with this but I think it's really interesting) is that the reason people decided to raise crops is for alcohol. Grain, rice, potatoes, and corn all make alcohol. There is actually some archaeological evidence for this.

there is significant archaeological evidence from caves (a good example is Franchthi Cave in the Argolid in Greece) where paleolithic and mesolithic peoples spent a good part of each year for centuries, eating small game and a great deal of fish, as well as some lentils and other vegetables. All the Low-calorie advocates say we don't know what paleolithic and mesolithic people ate. As an archaeologist, I take that personally :) we do in fact know a great deal, and it is reliable--not only WHAT they ate, but HOW MUCH (relative proportions) of what they ate, and we can identify plant species, animal species, etc. Those low-calorie people say we only have evidence from teeth marks on bones! Oh PLEASE!! My area of expertise is Greece and the Mediterranean, but since many of us are ultimately of European extraction, this actually applies to many of us.

Of course the reason that our life expectancy is long now is that we artificially prolong it with antibiotics, antiviral drugs, anti this and anti that. We don't live healthier lives, even if they may be longer. We live lives supported by constant health care and ultimately die of one of our self-inflicted diseases. I wish I could be more articulate in this post, but it's very late at night so I can't, but I really would like to help people understand that if ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY WERE CONSIDERED TO HAVE LASTED FOR ONE YEAR, AGRICULTURE WOULD HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED ON DECEMBER 15. That means that we simply haven't evolved to be able to handle it yet!

I hope people find this interesting, there's more of course ;)

Best, Kypraia

[Janeydi]

"I hope people find this interesting, there's more of course"

and do tell...(more, of course!) :)

Thanks for the sources, Captxray.

Amy

[captxray]

Hi, kypraia and Janeydi!!
I discussed this earlier, but there is another reason for population increase after the advent of agriculture...something in the grain-based diet makes women more fertile as is evidenced by the late (as late as 23 years old!) onset of menstruation and fertility in hunter and gathering groups. So, it's not just the need for more labor...although that is one reason...a very big reason as people moved into a labor-intensive lifestyle.

The latest studies of young girls, worldwide, show that menstruation (in girls) and other aspects of physical development (of boys and girls) have been moving into the lower age brackets since the advent of agriculture. Only recently (last 50, or so years) there has been an explosion in the earlier development of young girls, especially in Western "civilized" countries...notice that it is the Western countries who have the greatest amount of food preservatives, additives, flouride and other chemicals in our water, and variety of grains available for human and animal consumption.

Another thing about that alcohol thing...grains contain a highly addictive and somewhat euphoric set of chemicals that only recently have been found. The addiction is sometimes considered almost as hard to break away from as from cigarettes or certain illegal drugs. The euphoria that comes from eating grains is not like heroin, or even alcohol, but it is a feel-good thingy. There is a certain feeling of well-being that comes from the eating of grains. Add to that the ability to make alcohol drinks from grain fermentation and you have a "deadly combination."

Another interesting thing...just read it in latest issue of Popular Science, I believe...seems that scientists are now finding traces of chemical isotopes of certain foods imbedded in fossil teeth...soething like that, anyway...I refer you to the most-recent issue of Popular Science about using teeth from our ancestors to tell what they ate.

I love this thread. Awaiting more input from all of you knowledgeable low-carbers, out there. The Glory of God (or your higher power, or the power of the Universe) is Intelligence!!

[Janeydi]

that while girls are maturing earlier, it's seems to be harder than ever for them to get pregnant. Every female in my family, the generation after mine, has had problems getting pregnant. Five of them, ages 26-30. I never had a problem (!) nor do I remember anyone my age having problems. I became pregnant for the first time at 21. Maybe it is because they are waiting longer? One daughter of mine, age 20 has all sorts of problems with irregular periods, hormonal imbalances, yeast infections, etc. Unfortunately, because she could not drink milk, she had a lot of apple juice when she was little. I thought I was being a good mom. :( No sugary drinks, just pure apple juice. Now I sort of kid her about that study that shows that kids who had a lot of juice when young are shorter/smaller than others their age. She is 5'1" and the smallest person in our family. She has forgiven me. ;)

Geez, do we have any idea what we are doing to ourselves? Apparently not. Sure would be nice if the medical establishment would swallow their pride so we could get down to the serious business of finding this stuff out. Our lives depend on it.

Amy

[captxray]

You're right, of course. Our lives do depend on it. But, if I can at least make myself healthier, then I have saved one person from the "SYSTEM." There is just too much money riding on and, circulating out there to stop the production of "lowfat" foods, and grain products and by-products, and dairy products and by-products, and preservatives, and processing, and chemical additives, and soy products, and whatever, etc., etc., ad-nauseum. When it is no longer economically feasible for the companies who make this crap, it will stop...probably not in our lifetimes. Most people would rather be told what to do, anyway. They look to the "experts" (medical doctors who have never taken a course in nutrition, TV actors, movie stars who know less about most things than my cat, and companies like ADL, Ralston-Purina, R.J. Reynolds, Frito-Lay, General Mills, Kellogg Co., etc.) who have a special stake in keeping certain money-making products on the market, to tell them what to buy. People have not only given up their civil rights, they are also giving up their rights to life by eating "food" that is just plain bad for them. But, most people are going to do what they are going to do even if they know it's bad for them, no matter what...otherwise, the big tobacco companies would be out of business...and so would the alcohol-producing mega companies. As for me, I'll just continue to eat my fish, chicken, pork, beef, and ocassional lamb, along with veggies, seeds, nuts, plenty of purified water, fruit and berries...and see if I can somehow survive another thirty years to hike, and climb in my beloved Sierras and Cascades. If that works for me, the rest of the world will have to see to the rest, themselves. Sad. Even my own wife will not believe that my WOE is the best way to go. She sees the weight loss, and thinks I'm a zealot (I am, of course). She wanted me to lose the weight, but is not real happy with what I've become since losing almost 80 pounds. I am happier. I spend too much time exercising for her tastes. My body has obtained muscles I wasn't even aware I had. I used to like to talk about my diet to anyone who would listen so that I could help them in their health. MISTAKE! I actually think she eats some of the things that she eats just to spite me. She says things like, "But there are people who live to be 100 who eat grains all their lives." I retort with, "Yes, and there are people who smoke like chiminies all their lives and live a long time, too. But, aparently you are willing to take the gamble and hope to be in the minority of survivors." Well, I don't make points and she shudders every time I try to make a comment about my diet, or about people eating the wrong foods. So, I just keep my mouth shut around her, and around the people I work with, and everybody else. They don't want to hear it. Thank Goodness for this forum!

[Janeydi]

Fortunately, my hubby just wants me to feel better. I struggled for a long time, eating that junk (whole grain wheat). Not too many other people want to hear it. The resistance is amazing.

I am always a little ashamed to say I'm from Battle Creek, Mi, home of Kelloggs, Post, Ralston...Cereal Capital of the World. Yee-ha :( It's too bad, because even though William & John Kellogg were a little nutz, they were interested in bringing health to people. Currently, Kellogg's is interested in the almighty dollar, of course, nothing else. And you're right about it not changing in our lifetime. Can you imagine what would happen to our economy if the truth was shouted from the rooftops? yikes...

[chinatown]

This is very interesting to me. I can't afford the books and they aren't in the library. So I am getting some info on the Neanderthin diet free. Thx.

My question is ---what info re HONEY.

A friend of mine got into beekeeping 2 yrs ago and I started into honey as a delicacy. I enjoyed it on wholegrain bread and toast for lunch, and dribbled a spoonful every am on my whole wheat cereal with milk for brekky even. Now I have cut the bread and cereal and milk, but I love honey. Is it addictive? Why did it fix my haemeroids? My innerards, and exitards have never been better. I feel like I am 25 again.


What does Neanderthal/Paleo think re honey?
Sidebar: talking paleo and archeology, I can't get enough info on that submerged ol fresh water landscape under the shallow end of the Caspian or Aral Sea. Wonderful stuff.

[captxray]

Honey, in moderation, is a paleolithic food. Our ancestors gorged on honey, when they could find it. However, if you're trying to lose weight, or attempting to stay within certain boundaries, stay away from the gooey, sweet stuff. It is fructose based, so it doesn't spike your blood sugar like conventional sugars, but it is still death to a diet! It also contains trace elements that refined sugars don't contain. Everyti\hing in moderation is a good policy even when not trying to lose weight. Another thing...if it definetely makes you feel better, then go for it! I imagine that one could get addicted to it...people can get addicted to just about anything...even turning doorknobs can become an addiction. Remember, above all, honey is almost pure sugar...even if it is mostly fructose...we can get fat on sugar...it still can mess up a fat-burning metabolism, so it should be counted as a carbohydrate...just like all the others.

[kypraia]

Hi everyone, I was pleased to see lots of people interested in this stuff, so here are...

Some more scattered thoughts (as promised) on hunters and gatherers vs. agriculturists, from an archaeologist's perspective :) :

Agriculture is NOT a natural evolution from hunting and gathering. It is not an inevitable event.

Hunter/gatherer societies are generally more egalitarian, with less social hierarchy; resources are communal and there is less/no desire for material acquisition. Leaders are chosen meritocratically rather than aristocratically, plutocratically, or democratically.

Despite what many people think, hunter/gatherer societies created art as early as 50,000 BP. Burials which we have found dating to this time are an indication of spirituality and a belief in or concept in the afterlife of some variety. This idea that the human being has a non-material component (what we call the soul) was probably developed at this time (the precursor of religion).

One more interesting art fact: those figurines that were so often buried with the dead by H/G and early agric. societies have often been called "fertility figurines/idols" because of their voluptuous female form. The likelihood is that they were not considered "voluptuous" until recently (last 2 thousand years). This is something to consider when we think about our own body image. The female form that we consider voluptuous and denoting fertility was the normal depiction of a non-pregnant female for most of human history. Archaeologists are just starting to overcome this 20th century bias.

One drawbacks of agriculture that can be seen from any archaeological site is sedentism (the desire to stay in one place) is the natural result of agriculture. People no longer are willing to walk long distances. This leads to an intensified use of land. Agriculture grows and hunting/gathering diminish with the increase of sedentism in a society.

Agriculture, which is basically the domestication of plants (so they don't breed with weeds) and animals (so they don't breed with vicious animals) everywhere the DOG is the first animal domesticated. Not as food, but as protection. So the first use of animal agriculture (the domestication of the jackal [and in some areas the wolf]) was NOT for the diet but for the protection of barking as a warning of intruders. Also, dogs are omnivorous and so help with sanitation, which is a huge problem in sedentary societies. It was much later that dogs began to be used for hunting. They are almost never used as meat.

So, WHY did we become agriculturalists?
In 10,000 BCE, the climate began to warm up, which affected food supply. Large animals which had evolved to cooler climates moved north to maintain their environment. That left smaller, more adaptable animals.
From a sociological perspective, some chiefs may have wanted to mark their status by material acquisition and the building of permanent structures, which led to sedentism.

Agricultural societies do not entirely abandon hunting/gathering, but it becomes subsidiary.

Overall results of agriculture:
--sedentism
--social hierarchy becomes more pronounced
--centralization of population
--larger population, even exponentially, needed more workers which led to the development of ethical problems with abortion, exposure, and euthanasia ==> larger population
--trade develops for the first time as groups become less self-sufficient
--permanent architecture develops, usually mud brick first and wood
--pyrotechnology develops (manipulation of chemical changes) like clay + heat = pot.
--pottery appears (storage vessels were not previously necessary)--most important archaeological artifact available.

not to mention affects on health, longevity, sanitation, etc. The one undeniable advantage of agriculture is that agricultural societies produce exponentially more art, literature, and "cultural" product. This is probably a result of the fact that agricultural populations can afford to engage in division of labor, which is much more limited in H/G populations.

Okay, class dismissed!!
Best, Kypraia

[Janeydi]

Kypraia,

I love it when you drop in here! Have you read The Clan of the Cave Bear series? I'm re-reading them now, before I get the new one from the library. I'd heard the author did a LOT of research to make the books as authentic as possible. I love all the detail, and from what I've gathered, they are pretty accurate. I kind of chuckled last night at a part where they killed an animal and took only the fattiest/choicest cuts, leaving the rest for the scavengers. Lean meat, indeed!

Thanks again for your input.


Captxray,

I was curious about the honey/blood sugar connection. As soon as I buy some more testing strips, I'm going to try it. Hard to believe it wouldn't affect us the same as sugar. I may be different, though, as aspartame will give me an increase in blood sugar. Haven't tested Splenda, ran out of strips. They are kind of expensive to just use for curiosity's sake!

Amy

[captxray]

Hi Kypraia! Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that H/G women ever looked like those "Fertility Figures." I don't see how they could waddle from camp to camp and keep up with the group...unless the rest of them were as big as a barn (which hadn't been invented yet) and waddled, too! The animals they hunted to extinction must have been dumb, slow, lumbering fatsos, also. Maybe that's why they no longer exist(?). Now, I know that tree sloths were not that fast, and maybe mammoths were a little sluggish (although from the way elephants can get around, I find that hard to believe, too), but how in the heck did they keep from being the staple diet of large cats, or wolves, or cave bears? Somehow, the wrong animals became extinct! It seems inconcievable to me that a 300-400 pound human could exist on their diet, or hunt their food. Now, the gathering part wouldn't have been so difficult, but how does one sustain that much weight eating berries, fruit, roots, leaves and a few nuts? But, then, again, maybe the folks didn't eat the diet we think they did(?). When was pizza invented, anyway? I don't see how anyone, unless they had a metabolic imbalance, could eat low carb, high fat, high protein, be fairly active, and still have those bodily dimensions. Unless, of course, women were carried around in litters by very strong, virile men. What happened to the division of labor we must have had then?

[captxray]

JaneyDi!!!
I caution you about the strips. They are an evil invention of the "blood sugar" crowd! Well, maybe not, but they certainly don't work for me. I still lose the weight eating what I'm supposed to eat. I got caught up in the use of those evil little things and quite depressed when I couldn't turn them to even a slight tint of any other color than what they were when they came out of the bottle. So, I gave up on them and still lost the weight. If they work for you, good luck. But, don't be misled into thinking they are a way to tell if your body likes something, or not. Honey is pretty much the same thing as any other sugar, except it doesn't spike our blood sugars as much , which causes our pancreas to work overtime injecting insulin into our blood stream, which takes us into a "low blood sugar" depressed state and a craving for more of the "sugar high," which by this time, doesn't happen and all we get is fat, sluggish, and depressed.

Another thing...sugar substitutes fool us into thinking we are having sugar...the stuff fools our system, too. So, "Mr. Pancreas", trying to do a good job, injects the insulin, and away we go....!! If you are truly serious about eating "paleo," you will stay away from sugar substitutes of all kinds, and eat only naturally sweet fruits...in moderation. Remember, H/G groups don't eat a lot of fruit, nuts, veggies, or berries in the Winter. We should eat according to the season, as much as possible, too. Our metabolic system changes in the winter...more so, for those of us whose ancestors were most-likely living on the edges of the continental glaciers of the Pleistocene Epoch. As the sun drops lower in the sky in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, our metabolism adjusts to the seasonal change just like the trees, who drop their leaves. Hence, Seasonal Affective Disorder for many folks. We tend to put on and hold weight during the winter months...so, it's harder to lose weight during this half of the year. Eating sugar and carbs just compounds that problem.

[kypraia]

Sorry for the confusion. The figurines I'm referring too have wide hips but are not obese. They are found in burials in predominantly agricultural societies in the village farming stage (i.e., not yet large central structures). They depict women who were involved in agricultural activities who were doing less and less hunting and gathering. Hunting/gathering societies did not produce these figurines. I think the confusion stems from my poorly worded statement about "H/G and early agricultural societies" by which I mean societies that were involved in agriculture but still hunted and gathered on a smaller scale. I apologize for the poor wording, I wrote that post rather quickly.

I will not contest your other point; the animals were probably dumb, possibly lumbering, and probably quite high in fat. Keep in mind that the H/G bands were small and moved around a lot, thus preventing the large mammals from being hunted out. As for "the wrong animals became extinct" I don't know which animals you're referring to; they did not become extinct, they merely moved north to cooler areas.

As far as the body weight, they would not have weighed 300-400 pounds. I can't say what they would have weighed; there certainly would have been a variety of body weights, although obesity would have been far less common than it is today. Do not imagine that H/G bands went everywhere at a fast run. The hunters (men only) ran at times during the hunt. The women were (probably) not involved in hunting live game. As for migratory movements, it would have been at a slow walk.

As for their diet, we are very confident that we have a good idea what they ate. As for litters, people who were unable to carry themselves would have been abandoned. Evidence suggests that very elderly people, sick people etc. were left to fend for themselves. As for division of labor, H/G division of labor was generally along gender and age lines, and it did exist, although less markedly than in fully agricultural societies.

I hope this clears up some of the confusion.
Best, Kypraia

[captxray]

Hi kypraia!

I must admit that I was being a little absurd and trying to be a little humorous. I think my "humor" was only in my mind. However, a lot of the animals that early Man feasted on DID become extinct...Ground Sloths, Wooly Mammoths, Mastodons, the giant Bison of the Plains...to name a few. Also, the large cats of the "Saber Tooth" variety, Dire Wolves, Giant Cave Bears. When I said the "wrong animals became extinct," I was attempting to make funny by indicating that if people were so huge as to be lumbering beasts, it's surprising that the large cats, huge wolves, and cave bears became extnct with such a ready supply of "human" food available.

I agree with you about the exercise habits of H/G groups, but from some of the figurines I've seen, a woman of about 5'5" would have to weigh in at around 300 pounds to look like that. Of course, they were accenting her hips and breasts and exaggerating her overall dimensions for some reason, if not for "fertility symbolism." For all we know, these figurines could have been a representation of "Mother Earth," and her ability to provide for them.

Sorry for my poor attempt at humor.

[kypraia]

Oh, I know :) I got the humor and appreciated it :) but sometimes that darn "lecture mode" kicks in and I can't help it....

I think talking about those figurines is especially hard without referring to exactly what kinds we have in mind. The ones I've dealt with most (and so were in my mind) are Cycladic figurines, which are probably the most famous. Of course they look different everywhere. The figurines I've studied most tend to look as if certain "feminine" features are exaggerated. I think my point about this (so inarticulately expressed) was this:

The women were probably shaped the way we imagine them (lean and fit) but they still had round hips, breasts, heavier thighs than men did, and THIS is the point: those aspects (heavy hips, breasts, and thighs) were ACCENTUATED by the artists of the period, rather than hidden like they do now. I was making a point about prehistoric BODY IMAGE not prehistoric BODY SHAPE. These features were exaggerated for some reason (we don't know why) but clearly these features were considered positive rather than negative. Something for us modern women to consider. So hopefully that was better expressed. I seem to have a hard time making my points clear :daze: . It's not the reader's fault, it's my inability to put my thoughts into words.

As for the extinct animals, I know so little about that that I don't want to say anything dumb...just that those animals that became extinct did so AFTER going north. Therefore whatever the reason, it was probably not because of H/G's in any way. Some extinct species are merely considered "extinct" because they evolved so drastically that their descendants don't look like them at all. For example, the ancient "horse" is considered extinct, although we wouldn't have modern horses if they had become completely extinct; their evolutionary history lives on in their descendants. I don't know what happened with the mammoths (I am not ashamed to say I'm pretty ignorant about this topic).

Do you think saber tooth tigers and such ate humans? I've wondered about that. They probably had no qualms about killing them if in danger, but does the human body provide a good food source? I'm not sure about this at all. That would be pretty scary. As far as I know, humans have never been the preferred food source for ANY predator (except microscopic organisms and worms, which are more parasitic than predatory).

One other thing: it's pretty hard to become extinct. Really. In the modern world it's easier (thanks to humans) but it takes a major catastrophe in most cases.

Best, Kypraia

[captxray]

I know of at least two fossils (from my early days with paleoanthropology) where there are marks from the "saber tooth" of the large cats...one is in the skull of a fossil found in Brintain, I believe. Tigers prey on humans in India and further east, even today. Humans are evedently quite tastey to some of the large cats. If we happen to cross the path of a hungry predator who is bigger than we are, he (or she) doesn't make the distinction of whether or not we are "human" or not. We are automatically thought of as "food." Sharks seem to be quite fond of humans when silly humans decide to swim in their infested waters...unless, of course we have been eating a diet rich in carbohydrates and other "modern" foodstuffs (ie., grains, milk products, legumes, nightshades)...YUK! Only kidding!

It's pretty much an accepted fact (which really means, it's still a 'theory') that MAN, along with his protector-turned hunting partner, the wolf/jackal-who-turned-to-dog, really assisted in the extinction of many of the large vegetarian mammals. They could adapt to warmer climes...even, possibly, to different types of plant sources, but when Man and Wolf teamed up to hunt together, the large game animals "suddenly" disappeared and agriculture was well on its way to becoming the "WAY" for MAN to get his/her sustenance...and well on the way to a shortened life-span, disease and the poor health that plagues our kind, today.

[Janeydi]

Captxray,

Are you talking about Ketostix? I don't use them. I was testing my blood sugar (with a monitor and actual blood :) ) to see what foods would cause spikes, so I could avoid them. I had heard that Splenda doesn't affect blood sugar, but I know that aspartame does, on me anyway. I want to check honey now for those times when I want something sweet. I always thought it would be WORSE than sugar as it tastes so much sweeter to me. My desire for sweet things diminishes the longer I follow this WOE. I'm not following Paleo, really, as I'm not ready to give up my yogurt. Not convinced it's necessarily bad for health. After all, the Hunza's ate plenty of it. (Although it was raw.) Who's to say anyway, that early H/G didn't think the milk supply of a nursing animal wasn't a special treat? I realize they didn't 'milk' them, but that doesn't mean they never drank milk. ? We'll never know.

Amy

[captxray]

I was talking about ketostix...evil...evil...evil...Good that you are using your actual blood...

I have found since going on this WOE about 15 months ago, I have absolutely NO desire for "sweets" other than fruit...and sometimes, I just can't get enough of the stuff...which doesn't really help my weight loss, but sure satisfies my cravings...the only cravings I ever have, anymore. My wife is baking and making cookies for our daughters and family for the season, and the only ones that even slightly tempt me, because they were my favorites in my past life, are the sugary, lemon-butter cookies that she makes in a large pan and flattens them out and cuts them out in squares...but, I know if I tried one, it would be so sweet, my teeth would curl up and I'd want to die. A while back---actually about 10 months ago---I thought I would try Mexican food...I practically grew up on the stuff as a kid, having a grandfather born in Mexico and my first wife being Mexican, and living in Southern California while in my youth...well...BIG MISTAKE! I was sick to my stomach for three days...RUMBLE... TUMBLE...I've learned that since going completely Paleo, I can no longer eat the foods I used to eat...they make me deathly ill. That's a pretty good incentive to staying on the WOE!!! There are lots of problems with adults eating milk products unless you are getting the milk from your own animals...like the HUNZA, who let their cows run free and eat grass like ruminants are supposed to do, and didn't stuff them full of grains. All adults are lactos intollerant, but some just seem more so, than others. You might not even be aware of the intolerances you have. They could manifest themselves in other more insideous ways, like in the forms of autoimmune disorders such as Diabetes, Lupus, MS, arthritis, Rheumatoid arthritis, obesity...to name a few...you might get sleepy after eating milk by products, etc. and not even be aware that this is the reason for your lethargy, or you have an ache in the back, or neck, or???. Even human children are not designed for cows milk...only little cows are designed to eat that stuff...their dietetic demands are much different than ours...remember, they eat grass most of the time when they grow up. But, we humans are OMNIVORES. That means that our systems are designed to get nutrients out of a variety of food sources...so I would imagine our ancestors made something out of the milk in a lactating mother animal that they killed...waste not, want not! What I am sure of, though, is that our ancestors didn't make a regular thing out of it until after the advent of agriculture. "ALL THINGS IN MODERATION"

[Janeydi]

about not being able to eat the various things we have given up. As far as sweets go, you are a male, and don't have to worry about the cravings that come with the monthly hormonal fluctuations. Lucky you...

I understand what you are saying about the milk. I do buy full fat organic milk to make my own yogurt (which has little if any lactose left) and I buy organic butter. I have seriously thought about getting a Jersey, but don't have a fenced pasture yet. :) I have raised my own ducks, and next year will be getting chickens. I'm getting into this slowly. I've been reading a little on foraging, but haven't done anything about it, unless you count eating the wild raspberries that are on my way to the mailbox!

Dairy has been the hardest for me to give up. Wheat is evil, I hope to never eat it again...(not knowingly anyway) I don't miss much, either, the longer I don't eat it, the easier it gets. I aim for simple, whole foods, but with the crazy job I have, that doesn't always happen.

[captxray]

Yes, I am unabashedly a male. I love being a male. I'm not ashamed of being male, at all! I know all of this is politically incorrect, and that somehow, I should be groveling in guilt right now, but, DANG! It's great being a male! I don't envy you females, at all. And, I'll tell you something else...I am so glad my four daughters have finally grown up and have left the nest! Now, I only have to contend with one female who is going through the "change." When there were five in the same house, I would stay at work just so I didn't have to go home at certain times of the month, if you catch my drift. All five were on the "same schedule," practically, and the female hormonal energy every 28-30 days was mind-boggling, especially when I had four teenagers in the house at the same time...and then, their girlfriends....AGGGHHH!!! The phone was THEIR territory. So was the bathroom! Clothes everywhere! I could follow each one to her room by the trail of clothes each day when she got home from school! Their rooms!!! I'm sure we had some unusual forms of communicable disease growing in those rooms!!! THAT awful music! And worse, than worse...BOYS! UGLY, Filthy, raggedy, dirty-minded boys all trying to get "something" from my Sweet little girls!!!! "OH, Dad! You're just so Not With It!" I was just a "big, stupid, lumbering, monster" of a father who never wanted my daughters to have any fun! AND, I seemed to be the cold, calculating, careless, and easily blamed...MALE!!! "What do you know? Why You're just a big dumb MALE." HA! HA! Not any more! Now, I'm FREE, FREE. FREE, AT LAST! HA! HA! HA! FREE! MEEE! WEEEE! FREE!! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Sorry if I got a little carried away. Now, I can spoil my grandkids and watch my daughters wince in pain...HA! HA! HA! "Here, Junior! At Thanksgiving we always put olives on all of our fingers " HA! HA! HA! "Oh! Do you want another peice of pie? How about some more ice cream? Here! Have another Almond Roca! Want some chocolate? Oh, quit worrying, Angela! He won't stay up past midnight!" HA! HA! HA!

[Janeydi]

I've always thought you guys should have to suffer along with us gals somehow!!

I hope you're joking about the pie and ice cream knowing what you do about such things! :nono: Just rough-house with them instead--good exercise.

Amy

[captxray]

yes...I would never offer my own grandchild...or any other child that awful stuff, now...but it's fun to imagine, isn't it? I just spoil my grandkids with love, and walks in the park, and going fishing, and having a great time and get them so pumped up that when they go back to mom and dad, they are little terrors for a day...Grandma feeds them. I take them to fun places and buy them things and feed the ducks, and take lots of pictures and watch them explore the new world in a way that only children can...I love being a grandpa more than being MALE, even.

[shandyAndy]

Hi
Just to continue the topic....

Some of you guys seem to know what your talking about and obviously experts in your field, so you'll be able to answer me questions :spin:

How do we know that paleolithic man would not of developed degerative diseases and wotnot, if they had reached middle age with more regularity. Surely the strong immune system and chracter than allowed some exceptional people to reach older age would also of allowed them to avoid these diseases; just as today.

There have been studies on long lived people of our planet in the last 100 years or so. Althought i'm not an expert, i gather these include, the Hunzas, okinawans, Vilcabambans. I have read that those people primarily live on a plant based diet including lots of grains, tubers and beans; with little meat.

Also, don't the primarily meat and dairy product eating masai have a low life expectancy compared with the above mentioned groups; who live in similar conditions...

Also, dioxin and many other nasty chemicals continue to polute our world. Isn't it true that they are primarily found animal fat? I read they work their way up the food chain and are then concentrated in animal fat...

I'm not pro vegetarian or pro low carb. Your arguments sound very persuasive. I'm merely trying to convince myself and continue this interesting discussion. How do we really know cave people were healthy? Perhaps agriculture when combined with other healthy dietry elements (possibly not seen on the advent of agriculture) creates a protective effect that leads to longevity? Cave men weren't normally due for a long life so how do we know their diet set them up for one?

Also, if this way of life is so obviously healthy then why have no groups in the massive scientific cummunity been interested in creating long term studies on its effect on health. I think everyone would like to live longer healthier lives, isn't that massive inscentive to create a study if this was seen as a viable way of life.

One last thing. Why, if meat is so healthy do we not see its protective effects overwhelm other more poor dietry habits. What i mean is, vegetarians generally develop less cancer, supposedly because of the excess fruit and plants they're eating. Why then do we not see a similar effect from eating meat in population studies and wotnot? Supposedly, vegetarians develop less cancer but paleo dieters will develop none?

Thanks for any answers. I'll be very interested to hear your opinions. I know i don't site evidence for my opinions. If you like, i'll try and get some. Most of these things are questions that create nagging doubts while im sifting through all the nutrional information i'm constantly looking at.

Andy :daze:

[Janeydi]

and that is why haven't there been any studies done...

There have, in other countries. Do you have any idea what would happen to the US economy if people really GOT the truth about grains/starchy carbs? Having grown up in the Cereal Capital of the World (Kellogg's, Post, Ralston) I can tell you it would be devastating. The above 3 companies would fold. They are hanging by a thread as it is, and that is just one part of the high carb product market. The government/medical establishment isn't interested in the quality of life for Americans, they are interested in money, pure and simple.

JMHO

Amy

[shandyAndy]

Would the governement be able to stop such studies if scientists wanted to carry them out?

I'm sure studies would of been done, and although shuned by authorities, they would still be there. Scientists arn't politicians, and i'm sure they'd do the studies they felt neccesary. There are so many scientists doing so many studies. The guys who run this government can't control everything...

I'm also sure other governments around the world would feel less like holding their scientists back, even if this were true.

I really don't think you can hold back science these days....

Besides that, i'm not only bothered about spread acceptance....

Thanks for your answer....

[captxray]

Studies have been done, starting back in the 1830s and they have consistently shown that high protein, high fat, low carb eating is the way to go...but we have industries in the Western world who are completely dependant upon grain-based, dairy-based, "low fat" eating. If you look back in this thread you will see that I have given some references to a number of the questions you have regarding disease, cancer, etc. I plan to add to that list of references, but I must wait to get to where my sources are. I will post more, if you want. Sheldon has asked for more and I just haven't had the time to get back to him, or now, you. A man named Stefanson (sic?), and another man with him, did a full year on nothing but meat back in the 20s under medical supervision at (I believe) Johns Hopkins. At the end of the year, his cholsterol and his partner's had gone down tremendously, they were absolute specimens of wonderful health...lean body mass vs. fat had greatly increased. What happened to that study? Filed away until the Drs. Eades found it in their perusal while searching for evidence of the benefits of paleo eating. You ask some very good and challenging questions. I believe that if you view the studies of vegetarians, you will find that overall health benefits decrease as people become more and more dependent upon pure vegetables for their sustenance. Children actually develop nutritional deficiencies much quicker than adults, because their growing bodies demand nutrients in greater quantities. The longer people are on vegetarian diets, unless they are supplementing it with mega doses of vitamins, and other nutrients, the more we see deficiencies developing. There are great references to all of this at the Paleolithic Diet Page...more than you could possibly read in a day. Also, if you look at the main page of this forum, you will find many references to numerous studies that have been done, and that are being done, as we write. Don't be misled into thinking that we are looking at this like it is some great government conspiracy. I don't think it is. But, there are very powerful forces in "private" industry who have a lot of control of what people eat, buy, etc. Most of us don't exist in a bubble. We watch TV, we listen to the radio, we read magazines and newspapers...they get their message out to us all day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, year after year. They fund medical studies with a lot of money. They keep colleges and universities in business with grants and trusts...the list goes on and on.

As far as the evidence of paleolithic man's diseases...every day there are new ways to determine what paleo man ate, and what he had for sicknesses. From the fossil record, we know that people had a much longer life span than soon after the advent of agriculture...if you take out the numbers who died in childbirth (mothers and children), being killed by some accident, or being devoured by ravenous animals. In fact, we see that the ones who did survive into their 30s, 40s, and 50s show no evidence of degenerative diseases and autoimmune diseases such as diabetes, cancer, arthritis...so prevelant in populations today in those age groups. New studies of radioactive isotopes on fossil teeth are also showing what they ate, as well as some highly publicised mummies found in various parts of the world...the list goes on and on.

If you look at the diets and living conditions of many of the peoples you have described, you will find other factors are also present in the environment that contribute to long life, or short life. These people don't use chemicals, don't feed their cattle with genetically engineered corn, don't eat corn, themselves, and used to live in pollution-free environments, like the Hunza and Okinawans (by today's standards) or not in pollution-free environments (like the masai, who live in arid country with a polluted water supply).

You are right about dioxins finding their way into animal fat, and our fat as well as high concentrations of Omega-6 transfatty acids. That is why it is best to get your meat from smaller, private suppliers, who don't use feed lots, or go kill the meat yourself by hunting elk, deer, etc. However, in our modern world, we can only do the best we can. We simply can't live the total lifestyle of our paleolithic ancestors. Cancer is one of the banes of modern MANKIND. So is heart disease, diabetes, lupus, MS. obesity, rheumatoid arthritis...on and on...notice that all of these are autoimmunediseases which we do not find in the fossil record before the advent of agriculture and the advent of grains, dairy, and legumes. It is hard to find studies of total vegetarian populations (under strict scientific scrutiny) that address all of these diseases. Another thing. I am a student of Tao and a practitioner of Chi-Gong and T'ai Chi. Something that very few Westerners are aware of is that the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese people are some of the most unhealthy people on the planet in terms of the above-mentioned diseases. What do they eat as a staple in their diet? RICE...SOY...Grain. Go figure.

[shandyAndy]

yeah, i'd be interested in seeing your sources. Thanks. The only thing that has left me doubting paleo nutrition before is the long term aspect of health. We have plenty of evidence on how modern day diets effect longevity but none to proove how well paleo nutrition works.

The biggest flaw is simply that. I'm not sure how well fossil remains stand up as medical proof of health or not; especially compared to real live human beings! If you have any information on that then please let me know. Long term evidence is the key i think. Some of atkins rivals often point out that if he had started studies in the 70s then we'd all have long term studies by now. Oh well, any help would be appreciated...

Can you also explain why meat desn't show protective and beneficial effects on people like vegetables seem to do in studies? I have read meat contains sulphur containing amino acids which allow the body to build its main source of anti oxidant. Is it because the meat isn't wild meat?

Thanks

[Sheldon]

Here's Stefansson's own account (http://www.powerhealth.net/articles/default.htm) of his year living on nothing but meat and fish. He did this under the watchful eye of Bellevue Hospital and a team of doctors in New York City. He also spent a lot of time with Eskimos who ate very few vegetables.

Sheldon

[captxray]

Sheldon corrected my mistake on aspects of the Stefansson study...Bellevue, and the spelling of his name!!! A number of the references I will post will answer a number of your questions about longevity, etc. Also, you may not be aware of this fact, but Dr. Atkins is a cardiologist. He developed his diet from reading earlier studies, like the ones mentioned, and has treated tens of thousands of patients with very positive results. To date, there are no scientifically reported ill-effects that I am aware of in this WOE. There is a lot of hype, scaremongering, misinformation, ignorance, and downright misleading of the public by some very powerful sources, people, and organizations.

There is scientific PROOF. It's not easy to find, but it's there. As far as how we know about paleo-health...well, a lot of it is conjecture, but a lot of what is said about the benefits of being a vegan is politically motivated rhetoric, too. We know a lot more about the paleo diet and paleo man than you might believe. Using pure statistical methodology (and now computers), like what is used in living populations (when "scientists" feel it is relevant), we know a lot about the diseases and when they first appeared in Mankind.

Another thing. We are not advocating going on a meat-only diet, here. We advocate the eating of vegetables in large quantities, along with nuts, fruit, berries, fish, and fowl. The combination of these foods has an incredibly beneficial synergistic effect not found in a high carb, low fat diet, low calorie diet.

Using my Taoist teachings, it fits. "All things in moderation." "BALANCE" is what the yin and yang, or t'ai chi is all about. However, Stefannson proved that even when unbalanced, an all meat/fish diet, high in fat, sustained life, improved life, and built bodily tissue. Vegetarian diets, without supplements, cannot show that in long term studies. There are shown to be short term positive effects, but, in the long run...a period of a few months, in some cases, vegans lose lean tissue mass, show psychological effects like extreme irritability and combativeness; and a feeling of general malaise.

[captxray]

I know I said I would send out references on diabetes and autoimmune disease, but shandyAndy asked questions about studies, so here goes a few:
Stefansson and other all meat diet studies:

This one is the hallmark study of Stefansson's famous all year long experiment with an all meat diet at Bellevue Hospital in New York. Lieb, Clarence W., M.D. "The Effects on Human Beings of a Twelve Months' Exclusive Meat Diet." Journal of the American Medical Association " (July 6, 1929), 20-22.

McClellan, Walter S., this guy did 5 separate studies with different researchers, all published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, back in the 20s and 30's. You could look for him in vol 80 (1928), 639-52; also 653-58; vol 87 (1930), 651-68; also 669-80; vol 93 (1931), 419-34. He did these studies with some of the most famous scientific researchers of the era in the fields of physical anthropology and human biology such as: Eugene DuBois, Henry J. Spencer, Emil Falk, Vincent Toscani, and Virgil R. Rupp. They were studies of Acetone Body excretions, Respiratory Metabolism, Nitrogen, calcium and phosphorous calorimetry, and thresholds of Ketosis in Diabetes, epilepsy, and obesity.

Tolstoi, Edward, "The effect of an Exclusive Meat Diet Lasting One year on the Carbohydrate Tolerance of Two Normal Men." Same journal as above, vol 83 (1929), 747-52; another study by the same author in the same journal, 753-58.

Another good source for this kind of stuff is found in the Journal of Human Evolution (much later dates from the 80s and 90s); also Scientific American has done some great articles on carbohydrates and their effects on depression, etc.; other great sources are Nutrition Review, the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of Hypertension, Muscle & Fitness Magazine, The International Journal of Aging & Human Development, Health, Medical Hypotheses ...these are just a few of the sources that have scientific studies that have been done...Now, do you wonder why we haven't heard about them before this? I'll tell you...follow the money path.

Another source...Torrey, John C., et al...Journal of Infectious Diseases , vol 49 (1931), 141-76. This is a study of the effect of an all meat diet on the flora of the colon in human beings.

[Sheldon]

Thanks, captxray!

Stefansson also wrote a book, called The Fat of the Land (1956). Here is a good bibliography (http://www.neanderthin.com/bibli.htm).

Sheldon

[captxray]

:clap:
Thanks, Sheldon! I've never looked at this on his sight before. Of course, being on Neanderthin, I thought I had thoroughly perused this sight, but I guess I didn't. This is a great bibliography...some of the same books I've read, but others I haven't. good Stuff.

[chinatown]

Hi Sheldon. You are so close to your weight goal, so how are you going to celebrate it and whats your next goal?

[Sheldon]

chinatown--

I think my goal is slightly unrealistic. I seemed to have stabilized at 162-163. To go lower I'd have to do things that are probably not good to do--like cut out all fruits and nuts. I really should change my goal and accept this as my natural weight.

Regards,
Sheldon

[chinatown]

I read the 3 part article by the Eskimo anthropologist re meat eating. I have not read anything like that before.
<P>The imagination staggers at what he went thru by force of his will, he adapted, he overcame, and he learned a lot. I like the sidebar story on caries too. Unbelievable. This thing is a real eye opener. I like hunting, but I'd never eat anything I shot. I don't shoot ducks, kangaroos are too tough, boars are too diseased, etc. And fishing exceeds my attention span -too much of nothing happening.
<P>I fancy I could go polynesian and live on prawns (shrimp)! But prawns cost $15 a kilo (that would be $US30 for 2.2lb.) I don't like seafood much at all.<P> Anyway, the article was a good stimulant. Thanks.

[captxray]

I have stabilized with about a 76-78 pound weight loss and haven't moved down for about four and a half months, now. I really wanted to be back at my old world-class rock climbing weight of the 60s, but, I don't think my body wants to go there, any longer. I've lost more by cutting back on fruit and nuts, but, I gain it right back when I eat two pieces of fruit and a few nuts, each day, and I'm not going to compromise my system to get to that weight if my body is telling me that it is comfortable here. Besides, I'm not planning to climb the big walls that I used to in Yosemite at this time in my life. My weight is great for hiking and backpacking with ultralight equipment, as evidenced by my hiking almost 200 miles last summer with my brother in the Sierras and the Cascades, and even climbing one big mountain, as well as no more high blood pressure, and feeling absolutely fantastic! The compliments from others doesn't hurt, either.

[Channah]

Hi, Sheldon. Old thread, but I though I'd trow in my .02 anyway.

Back a while ago, I took a few anthro courses. Of course, we discussed hunter-gatherer cultures. They are way more healthy than agricultural societies. They tend to consume fewer calories, obviously fewer carbs (almost none), and get quite a bit of exercise in their daily routines. The few that are left today have very low cholesterol and extremely low incidences of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

I think life spans increased with advent of an agriculture because it was safer to an extent. You are less likey to die from plating corn, than say from running down a gazelle or by chance being bitten by a snake while gathering. Also, an agricutural society allowed people to set down roots, which in turn gave them the ability to start looking into things like medicine.

Just my .02.

[captxray]

I wish we could get a little more participation on this line of thinking...paleo...but, oh, well. I still haven't lost a thing since my last post in December. In fact, I've gained about 8 pounds...and am still eating the same stuff I always did on this WOE. Go figure. It's Winter. Maybe when the weather warms up, I will lose, again. I don't know why I can't seem to lose any more weight. Maybe my ancestors were tubs-o-lard and I have their genes. I feel very healthy. I am still doing my exercises and my body continues to fill out in places it never did before. My fat index doesn't seem to want to go any lower, either. Oh, well.

[Chasintrai]

Maybe your ancestors were cold-weather adapted and your body is pre-disposed to hold onto weight in the winter? Works for me! LOL

I found this thread interesting, as an Anthro major (freshman, don't expect enlightenment!), the idea that we are evolved to eat a hunter/gatherer diet makes perfect sense to me. 10,000 year or so is very little time for our bodies to adapt to a completely different diet. We can survive on high-carb, but it's not what we function best on. That said, I'm not sure that I agree that the HG diet was completely grain or dairy free. I believe that there would have been some grain comsumption, not a complete dependence, but a regular consumption. Grain is very easy to store, and probably would have been stocked for the winter. As for dairy, this is a little more off the wall, but, when you kill a nursing animal, why waste? Most parts of an animal are eaten in HG cultures, I really can't imagine that milk would be an exception? Feel free to call me on this one! LOL

[m1whowaits]

Capt, Been a lurker on this thread, waiting for new posts on the subject. Neanderthin is next on my to read list. The subject intrigues me. A thought on the winter weight. In a survival sense, wouldn't one need to gain additional body fat for the winter for additional body heat and energy stores because of less frequent food consumption? There was a show called Northern Exposure set in Alaska. One episode featured everyone eating calories like mad to put on weight to get ready for winter. In a survival aspect it makes sense, Just like bears!!

Liz

[m1whowaits]

Bump :D

[John P]

Hi Folks - my very first post ever to any forum - so here goes.

I've just read this thread from beginning to end and I don't think anyone has raised the point about food storage. Grain, once dried, can be easily and safely stored for many months or years. To preserve meats prior to advent of refrigeration needed labour intensive salting or smoking processes. The oils in nuts and seeds will become oxidised in storage leading to rancidity. So carbs are easier to store than foods with high protein or oil/fat content.

Therefore - I'd just like to propose the idea that one of the reasons for the spread of agricultural was that those H/G groups with a few pots full of stored grain would be better able to survive periods of food shortage that H/G groups who were soley dependent upon hunting and gathering.

A bit of personal info - newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic early January 2003 - overweight - bad blood profile, typical syndrome X. Since January have followed Pritikin type diet with lots of whole grains and very low protein and fat. Lots of exercise ran 160 miles and walked 80 total in 10 weeks to early March.
Results: lost about 8 or 9 lbs then plateaued - desperately hungry all the time, blood sugars still too high ... until ...

Inspired by BBC Diet Trials evaluation of Atkins diet - investigated low carb last Monday (24March) - came across Active Low-Carber Forums - ordered Bernstein's book (Diabietes Solution) same day from Amazon.co.uk, cut down on carbs (low rather than zero). Results: not been hungry since start of low carbing, last two days have had pretty near normal blood sugars (although fasting result is still high in morning due to liver insulin resistance). I'm sure that my total daily calorie consumption has dropped markedly since eating all this "unhealthy" stuff.

One other point related to the thread - there was a discussion about the effects upon the grain industry if low carb diets became more popular - don't forget that there is a massive vested interest in the sale of industrially produced meat products - look at the mess we got into here in the UK with mad cow disease. Consumption of beef dropped way off, just like the consumption of eggs when our food minister (Edwina Currie at the time, more latterly famous for having a secret affair with prime minister John Major) announced that most British chicken flocks were rife with Salmonella in the early 80's. She lost here job for being honest with the public and the egg industry collapsed for a while.

Looking forward to reading more of these forums and thanks for all the inspiring info. I just hope I haven't harmed myself long term with all the high carb stuff prior to last Monday, BTW, further 5lbs off in last 6 days.

John P

[LizB.]

The population increases because the food increses, not the nutrition of the population, at least not the nutrition of the people at the bottom of the heirarchy. The purpose is to facillitate a sedentary lifestyle, consolidation of surplus and the growth of a labor force for the upper classes. The best book that I have ever read on the subject is The Story of B by Daniel Quinn.

LizB.

[LondonIan]

Not a cogent argument, but a few observations that bear on this discussion:

1. Average Life Expectancy is exactly that: average. The biggest factor in lowering that average is high infant mortality. It does seem likely that this fell drastically during the neolithic agricultural revolution. As a suggestion, this may be because on of the effects of NAR was almost certainly larger communities, more free time and less travel. Nomadic lifestyles can be hard on babies!

2.Re the dairy thing: evolution doesn't stop. Europeans now rarely switch off their ability to digest milk after the weaning period. Milk is the best possible food for young humans - having it available and digestable through all the lifespan is just a little useful! :p

3. I've read some similar books, but why did he have to call it Neanderthin - Neanderthals aren't our ancestors!

4. Nobody actually knows the make-up of the diet of our ancestors in the 10,000 to 150,000 timespan. How important was gathering roots (about 60%to 90% of diet for modern hunter-gatherers!)? How about only eating nuts and fruits for the month or so a year they are in season? Did gathering handfuls of wild grain contribute significantly to early diet, long befoe agrarianism?

5. I really worry about the quality of the protein available now - ther is a huge difference in HDL/LDL balance between wild and domestic animals.

What do people think?

Ian in London and Ketosis

[LondonIan]

*tumbleweed*

[BigSteve]

Looks like you have a great thread going here. I'm new here and I switched to a more "Paleo" style of eating a few years ago. I only consider myself "semi-Paleo" because I do have some Neolithic tendencies. That is I partake of grains, but only in their whole unaldulterated form.....no storebought fake whole grain products. I found that combining a diet where I eat a low-fat grain grain/vegetable/protein diet during the week and a higher fat protein/vegetable diet (includes lots of nuts and fatty fish) on the weekends I am able to maintain my best health. I do a lot of backpacking and weight lifting so I need some carbs. I generally do not eat store bought meat because I don't like the way its processed....at least with fish, there's not too much they can do to ruin it unless it's farmed fish.

I have some theories of my own on life expectancy and the state of modern man's health. I don't think the obesity and health problems of the Western civilization can be blamed on carbs, fat, or protien.....I believe firmly that its the way the food industry has altered and perverted our natural food supply. The question is, what can you do about it? Obviously, the whole world can't start eating grass-fed animal, fruits, and vegetables. For one thing, there would never be enough pasture to support a food supply like this. For another thing, 80% of the planet wouldn't be able to afford such a diet. How can you help the starving in Africa?....grain products, and teaching them to grow their own and combining these with their own native healthy foods, to include fish and livestock. It's the only way.

People only live longer today because of advances in science. We're not healthier than our ancestors, we're pathetic in comparison. Even if you look back at the founding fathers of this country....John Adam, Benjamin Franklin, and others lived well into their 80's....in the 1700's with no antibiotics or anything. They continued to be productive until their deaths. They didn't live for years with crippling diseases. The average life expectancy back then was much shorter only because of the great number who succumbed to flu and other viruses at an early age. Today, we can easily cure these things in most cases. If our ancestors had the same medical science we have today, yet still maintained their diet and lifestyle, who's to say how long they may have lived?

[Hybrid]

Young grain-eating girls mature into first menses..now, on the average around 11-12 years old...some are starting menses at 7-8 years old in the last 50 years! The average hunter-gatherer girl doesn't even start her menses until she's between 17-21! GRAINS!

An interesting book I recently read called "The Rosedale Diet" pointed out that diabetes is more or less the same as aging. Something in the neolithic diet appears to be aging people fairly rapidly compared to the diet of hunter-gatherers. One of the things triggering early puberty in the last century is the introduction of soy as a filler to many processed meats. I don't recall is soy contains estrogen or merely something very much like estrogen, but it's not recommended for children or for males of any age.

[sambalam]

soy has phytoestrogens which mimic estrogen. this is the link i give to anyone who is eating soy still

http://www.theomnivore.com/The%20Soy%20Page.html

[Bat Spit]

Originally Posted by captxray
Young grain-eating girls mature into first menses..now, on the average around 11-12 years old...some are starting menses at 7-8 years old in the last 50 years! The average hunter-gatherer girl doesn't even start her menses until she's between 17-21! GRAINS!

No one seems to have pointed this out, but grains (carbs) increase insulin. Insulin is the founding hormone that tells your body to make more hormones of all types and to build things up. Add that to the increased body fat (also caused by insulin) storing up plenty of extra estrogens and it's no question to me at all why agricultural societies had increased population and younger physical maturity.

Of course, the growth hormones currently used in the mainstream meat industry COULDN'T POSSIBLY have anything to do with the recent jump in the ages of girls reaching puberty. Down to 9 from 12. Nope, not possible. Our government told us so.

(yes, that's sarcasm, for those who aren't sure)