Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #85   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 11:02
PlaneCrazy's Avatar
PlaneCrazy PlaneCrazy is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,146
 
Plan: Modified Paleo Atkins
Stats: 260/260/190 Male 71 inches
BF:Getting/Much/Bette
Progress: 0%
Location: Durham, North Carolina
Default

The sexual practices of the bonobos is a very interesting subject. Google it and you'll find lots of good material. They use sex as a form of social intercourse. (pun intended) It's a greeting, a hand shake, a way of apologizing, and they do it in every possible combination of genders and positions. (I've seen footage of them having a quickie while both were hanging from a branch)

Whenever I read about eating the contents of herbivore intestines, I remember a travel show I saw (Globe Trekker with Ian Wright). The host is way out in Lapland in the middle of nowhere. His guide, a professional reindeer hunter, shoots a reindeer and while gutting it offers some of the partially digested intestinal material to the show's host, insisting it is an Arctic delicacy. When the host tentatively tries a bit and spits it out as the most vile tasting stuff, the guide laughs heartily at this bit of Laplander humor. He then says that no one actually eats the stuff, it's disgusting. And this is a guy who subsists on an almost totally reindeer diet all year long so eats just about every part but the hooves.

Ever since seeing this, I am very skeptical of this story of eating the partially digested lichens and scrub grass the caribou or reindeer or whatever live on.

Just my experience. Maybe some early arctic explorers had this same joke played on them and they bought it, hook line and sinker while their indigenous guides just laughed at them.

Plane
Reply With Quote
  #86   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 11:24
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,843
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Sorry for the hijack: I read a book probably 10 or more years ago called "Peacemaking Amoung Primates". It was VERY thought provoking. Anyway, it covered the Bonobo social structure. I especially liked the end where they compared human peacemaking with primate peacemaking... especially the bit with Kruschev's pounding his shoe on a desk at the UN. Very, very, very excellent work.
Reply With Quote
  #87   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 11:35
quax's Avatar
quax quax is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 95
 
Plan: relaxed Paleo
Stats: 194/154/154 Male 177 cm
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Germany
Default

You gotta read "Our Inner Ape" by Frans der Waal. One of the most intriguing books I've ever read. de Waal is leading primatologist and he does a great job in working out how chimps, bonobos, and humans are alike and not alike. A great read!
Reply With Quote
  #88   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 11:47
manaburrn's Avatar
manaburrn manaburrn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 575
 
Plan: Lots of milk+milk protein
Stats: 27.2/14.5/09.0 Male model, 6'1"
BF:lbs:237/200/212
Progress: 70%
Location: Upstate, SC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PlaneCrazy
a professional reindeer hunter, shoots a reindeer and while gutting it offers some of the partially digested intestinal material to the show's host, insisting it is an Arctic delicacy. When the host tentatively tries a bit and spits it out as the most vile tasting stuff, the guide laughs heartily at this bit of Laplander humor. He then says that no one actually eats the stuff, it's disgusting.

Reply With Quote
  #89   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 14:30
kallyn's Avatar
kallyn kallyn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,998
 
Plan: life without bread
Stats: 150/130/130 Female 5 feet 7 inches
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Pennsylvania
Default

Woah there guys. One random guy pops up on the board, lays down his opinion, and suddenly everyone is like "thank you for validating me! I shall now go forth and eat nothing but critters for the rest of my days."

Have you left your common sense at the door?

Now, I'm not picking on The Bear. (hi The Bear!) I'm sure his way of eating has worked for him over the years, or he wouldn't be here. I'm merely pointing out that hearing an anecdote about one person does not equal adequate research before radically changing your diet. Now, all of us here have changed our diet to some extent or another or we wouldn't be here. But I'm willing to wager that we did it after reading, reading, and reading some more and coming to an educated conclusion that seems to fit all the facts. Maybe The Bear has a valid conclusion about his diet. I don't know, because I have done no research on it yet. It is definitely intriguing though, and has sparked my interest enough that I WILL start doing some research on it. That doesn't mean I'm gonna run out and immediately radically change my eating patterns because one guy said so.

I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just honestly concerned for people.

BTW, The Bear, I think I ran across your webpage about two years ago and was intrigued enough about the essays that I remembered them today when I clicked over there! The internet is a small world.
Reply With Quote
  #90   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 15:08
paulm's Avatar
paulm paulm is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 113
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 215/185/190 Male 6'1"
BF:
Progress: 120%
Location: Arizona
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kallyn
Maybe The Bear has a valid conclusion about his diet. I don't know, because I have done no research on it yet. It is definitely intriguing though, and has sparked my interest enough that I WILL start doing some research on it. That doesn't mean I'm gonna run out and immediately radically change my eating patterns because one guy said so.



What?!?! Why not, this is the guy that helped design the greatful dead's logo!!! That's gotta be worth something!!!
Reply With Quote
  #91   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 15:37
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,843
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I've been just reading and politely keeping my opinion to myself, which I must say I'm getting better at doing. It is totally against my nature!

Suffice it to say, you take my veggies away from me and you've ruined my self-concept of probably being the gatherer part of that hunter-gatherer clique.

*hovers protectively over her asparagus, artichokes, lettuces, turnips and other... *harrumph* non-foods*
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #92   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 15:38
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kallyn
Woah there guys.
kallyn, I hear what you are saying. I think a lot of people may have questioned many times about the necessity of carbs in one's diet. I know I have. In "Life Without Bread" the authors point out (especially for northern europeans) that we could not have adapted to eating carbs this quickly, and that our ancestors diets were pure animal food. I have thus questioned the reasons behind eating ANY vegetable matter. I think what Bear is bringing up in this thread is like someone walking into a dark room and turning on a flood light! People are just amazed at that. I appreciate your concerns though, cuz I too think we should research what is being said. I hope Bear will help out with providing some links or references so we can all educate ourselves more on these concepts. I for one have always had a problem "eating enough vegetables" and I am anxious to get away from that (invalid?) conviction. Besides, he was the soundman for the Dead... so, he must know something!

Last edited by PaleoDeano : Tue, Feb-28-06 at 15:47.
Reply With Quote
  #93   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 15:43
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,843
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I think you're making a mistake when you try to extrapolate how one locality of people ate to the entire world. Conditions were different in the various places and that lead to various regional diets. Compare the aboriginal Inuit diet with the Masai, the Maori, and Amazaon and even the different areas inside of Africa.

I think that much like us, if it tasted relatively good and didn't cause you to double over in cramps or die, you ate it when it was around.
Reply With Quote
  #94   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 15:56
Duparc's Avatar
Duparc Duparc is offline
New Member
Posts: 586
 
Plan: self-designed
Stats: 216/189/190 Male tad under 6'
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Kirriemuir, Scotland
Default

I note the doubt that is beginning to develope in these posts on the authenticity of TheBear's opinionated views and I share Kallyn's concern on how some are being easily duped by him, yet, none seem to see him as I do, as an imposter! He is simply regurgitating what has been written by others and all that he has mentioned on dieting has already been discussed on these forms. He is not actually sharing views and experiences but rather pedantically lecturing us so may we be careful of false prophets!

Last edited by Duparc : Tue, Feb-28-06 at 16:29.
Reply With Quote
  #95   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 15:57
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC
I think you're making a mistake when you try to extrapolate how one locality of people ate to the entire world. Conditions were different in the various places and that lead to various regional diets. Compare the aboriginal Inuit diet with the Masai, the Maori, and Amazaon and even the different areas inside of Africa.

I think that much like us, if it tasted relatively good and didn't cause you to double over in cramps or die, you ate it when it was around.
I must disagree. I think as homo sapiens "fanned out" across the globe, they continued to do as they were socialized to do, and that is HUNT! It was ONLY when game got scarce that they resorted to doing otherwise. You are referring to another time (not true paleolithic time) when you speak of all these different diets. The original human diet WAS animal food. It no longer is, but we have not fully adapted to these new diets, and that is why we are seeing lots of diet induced diseases. I will agree with the fact that as people did start going away from their original diet of prey (animals), they started consuming whatever was in their environments... that is true, and that is why there is this diversity of diets as you point out. But, that is not addressing the subject of this thread, which is to say that the "real" (original... species appropriate) human diet is 100% animal food. In northern europe (where my ancestors come from) it has only been a couple thousand years since this was the diet (for a long time) of those people. So, I don't have much of a problem eating this way. I think it will be great! I too love veggies, and cookies and ice cream and.......

Last edited by PaleoDeano : Tue, Feb-28-06 at 16:05.
Reply With Quote
  #96   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 16:00
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,843
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I don't think you can definitively state what the Paleo diet was because we don't have that much evidence that lasted for 10,000 years. Bones stick around for a long, long time, but discarded vegetable matter tends to break down pretty quickly. Probably the best way to figure out what they ate is by looking at what people who have had limited contact with civilization are (or were) eating now (or earlier in the century).
Reply With Quote
  #97   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 16:10
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC
I don't think you can definitively state what the Paleo diet was because we don't have that much evidence that lasted for 10,000 years. Bones stick around for a long, long time, but discarded vegetable matter tends to break down pretty quickly. Probably the best way to figure out what they ate is by looking at what people who have had limited contact with civilization are (or were) eating now (or earlier in the century).
But if you look to recent "hunter-gatherers", you will not be seeing the ways of the pure "hunters" that came before. And, it is possible to get this evidence that you say is so elusive. There is technology that is being used right now that makes it possible to know a lot about the past, based on examination of sites. Read this. I think Bear is onto something. And that is we were first "hunters" and then became "hunter-gatherers" and then became "gatherers" and then most of us became slaves and then we shopped at the A&P and now everyone just goes to Wal-Mart!

Last edited by PaleoDeano : Tue, Feb-28-06 at 16:26.
Reply With Quote
  #98   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 16:15
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duparc
I note the doubt that is beginning to develope in these posts on the authenticity of TheBear's opinionated views and I share Kallyn's concern on how some are being easily duped by him, yet, none seem to see him as I do, as an imposter! He is simply regurgitating what has been written by others and all that he has mentioned on dieting has already been discussed on these form. He is not actually sharing views and experiences but rather pedantically lecturing us so may we be careful of false prophets!
Duparc. You need to drop a bunch of acid and then design a logo for a cult band and then you will be allowed to join the ranks of false prophets!... or at least Dead Heads, I would think. Until then, let's not kill the messenger.

Last edited by PaleoDeano : Tue, Feb-28-06 at 23:09.
Reply With Quote
  #99   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 16:16
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,843
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Well, so far looking through actual archeological papers, not people publishing diet-books are speculations on web sites, it invariably mentions vegetation was part of the diet.

Go to scholar.google.com and search on paleolithic diet and maybe throw in the word anthropology.

Here's one sample with three references (1-3): http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/6/1308#R1

Quote:
Application of the computational model to modern preagricultural hunter-gatherer and primitive nongrain horticultural societies
Considerable information has been published on the dietary patterns of modern hunter-gatherer societies, so it seemed reasonable to try to apply the computational model in selected cases, in particular to see whether a net base-producing diet might even be a possibility as a habitual diet for any such society. As we began to do that, we quickly discovered that most of the information in the literature was not specific enough to define a diet for each society that together incorporated all 3 components needed to estimate NEAP: 1) animal-to-plant energy ratio, 2) animal-fat energy density, and 3) distribution of plant-food energies among plant-food groups. It was necessary to make numerous guesses and to define a variety of menus for each society to incorporate likely variations in those components, which essentially duplicated the strategies we used, described above, to encompass the range of possible ancestral preagricultural diets. Nevertheless, in surveying the literature, we noted that the descriptions of diets of many hunter-gatherer societies can be matched to the net base-producing diet scenarios listed in Table 3Go and thus serve as precedent for habitual consumption of net base-producing diets by ancestral humans. These included the !Kade San (45 , 46 ) and the Western Desert Australian Aborigine (47 ). Likewise, the descriptions of diets of many primitive horticultural societies, such as the Kitavans in the Trobriand Islands (48 ), who habitually consume mostly tubers and fruit and other nongrain plant foods, and the Yanomamo of the Amazon Forest (49 ), who cultivate plantains (a type of banana) and hunt wild game, can be matched to the net base-producing diet scenarios listed in Table 3Go.
Reply With Quote
  #100   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 16:33
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manaburrn
Ummmm.....I don't think it works that way
Yah... that was my point (question).
Reply With Quote
  #101   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 16:45
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

Try on this logic. If a species can get all the nutrients it needs from hunting and consuming wild game, then they would opt to do this. It is far more "bang for the buck" energy for starters. And the larger the game, the more "bang for the buck". Also, the nutrition in this WOE is far superior to any other WOE. If you doubt any of this, just ask our friend, the cat! SO... unless there was not enough game to go around, as long as we had the technology (Ray's type of technology... the sharp stick), we would have opted to eat this way... PERIOD!

And, even before that, if we had the brains to crack open bones and skulls with rocks, we could get a lot of good nutrients from marrow and brains left over by our friend, the cat. The only question then, is when did we get away from eating this way? Because for a LONG time this would have been the most LOGICAL way to eat. Can anyone dispute this? Humans followed the herds. They were nomadic. They are now everywhere... no coincidence here. And, just because there is "food" in one's environment does not mean they will eat it! How many times have you pulled your car over (on your way home from the grocery store) and walked out to the field where you saw cows grazing and got down on all fours and started munching on grass?!!! Let's try to use some intelligence on this subject, OK?

I mean, we obviously learned a lot from our friend, the cat, when it came to this hunting thing. And they are pretty intelligent if you ask me. They have this whole feeding thing down cold. My cats just sleep all day, and then I bring them raw meat to eat! Now THAT is the best "bang for the buck" going! I guess that is the REAL reason we learned to hunt... it was simply for the benefit of cats! They actually taught our ancestors how to do it, so they could one day retire! Like I said... VERY intelligent!

And, BTW... how does this change the assumption that primitive humans have always had a division of labor between the sexes. Perhaps that did not occur until "hunting-gathering" came about. The female lions are the hunters. I wonder how things were back in our pure "hunter" days?

Last edited by PaleoDeano : Tue, Feb-28-06 at 18:00.
Reply With Quote
  #102   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 17:03
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,843
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Theories like that sound great, Paleo. But it may not really reflect what happened at all. We can pull all kinds of stuff out of our parts of the anatomy we sit on, but just because they sound "logical" to us, doesn't mean it happened that way. That's why we need anthropological evidence.

You're assuming that hunting was easier than gathering. It might have been at times when game, especially big game, was plentiful and dumb, but their may have been other times, and locations, where gathering was as easy as climbing a tree, picking fruit up off the ground, digging up a root, picking berries off a bush or smashing some nuts with a rock.

P.S. I was just teasing about my self-perception as a gatherer. I'm pretty sure I was probably the woman lounging on a rock supervising someone else and nagging the men to make themselves useful.

I really agree with much of the paleo philosophy due to how my body is rejecting so many of the products of modern agriculture, but I don't see a lot of objective evidence that man was ever solely carnivorous. The best evidence I have seen in modern HG, our closest animal cousins is that humans eat a lot of different foods and, in fact, do best when they have that variety available.

It is a little hard to compare though. Because we're living a lot longer than our uncivilized ancestors due to sanitation, improved child birth, disease control, insect control and stuff like that.

I don't think you can even point at the Innuit and say they lived longer on their diets, if I recall correctly, they tended to die pretty young.

Well... oops! I wasn't going to get dragged into a debate on the topic. And look what happened. Off to reform school with me.

Last edited by Nancy LC : Tue, Feb-28-06 at 17:16.
Reply With Quote
  #103   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 17:20
Zuleikaa Zuleikaa is offline
Finding the Pieces
Posts: 17,049
 
Plan: Mishmash
Stats: 365/308.0/185 Female 66
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Maryland, US
Default

I reiterate:

I hate to be the one to bring some reality to this discussion but I used to be a bit of an anthropology buff.

All my research, lectures, presentations I went to detailed that paleo man was an omnivore and an opportunistic diner.

All the analysis that I've seen of paleo human coprolites (dung) included both vegetable and offal matter. In the case of vegetable matter, more or less vegetable matter in the dung was used to place the season. A lot of this dung was found preserved in caves. Analysis has gotten so good, via DNA, they were able to identify the type of matter and even sometimes the species. The coprolites contained protein (both muscle and offal), insects, berries, grasses and other vegetation.

Further for paleo, depending on your timeline definition--mine is before settlement--the area of habitation was quite widespread and the resulting diet diverse. If you want to look at it as a time when there were still mastadons, they found vegetable matter and offal in those coprolites as well.

Another idea to think of...before there could be agriculture, as primitive as the first agriculture must have been, there must have been a selection from the wild of what to grow. That means that certain grasses, bulbs, fruits, and yes vegetables were growing and available in the wild.

And looking to todays woods and forests for sustenance is quite useless, the forests of today are domesticated and barren. And further, why limit yourself to this area/climate/continent. But you don't even have to look far past what was available in the forests and fields of North America when Native Americans were living in this country to see what might have been availble in the wild--onlions, garlic, cabbage, gourds, fruits and berries, greens, and yes even grasses/grains.

Oh and another thing...the liver is a great source of vitamin A, and internal organs are concentrated sources of other nutrients. I hardly think there would be so many primitive peoples who had culteral traditions and ceremonies for the eating of brains, hearts, and livers if these things weren't part of a more ancient diet.
Reply With Quote
  #104   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 17:28
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC
You're assuming that hunting was easier than gathering. It might have been at times when game, especially big game, was plentiful and dumb, but their may have been other times, and locations, where gathering was as easy as climbing a tree, picking fruit up off the ground, digging up a root, picking berries off a bush or smashing some nuts with a rock.
Not, "easier"... just WAY more "bang for the buck". As I said, no one is going to stop to forage if they have grocery stores. Why spend the unnecessary energy? Survival is all about energy. If you can get TONS more energy from taking down a wild herbivore, you don't waste any energy climbing trees or even picking up food off the ground... especially when this "food" is nothing you learned to eat. If people were hunters they learned to eat animals, and they would have scoffed at eating anything else, as even some surviving tribes, like the Masai of Africa do to this day. They laugh at the concept of eating veggies... saying "that is for cows"!


I still don't see the reason in eating anything but hunted animals. What possible reason would there be? Unless forced by necessity, it would have been ridiculous to eat anything else. And, until the game was scarce, there would have been no reason at all to eat anything else. Humans followed herds until one day they were (for whatever reason) scarce. ONLY THEN would there have been ANY reason for abandoning a far more efficient WOE! Besides, by then we would have grown big enough brains to build society and start taking in all the cats. That was our only reason for evolving anyway! Otherwise we would have just been cat food for the pre-historic cats.

So, please pass that FATTY piece of pork!!!!! mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Last edited by PaleoDeano : Tue, Feb-28-06 at 19:34.
Reply With Quote
  #105   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 18:02
quax's Avatar
quax quax is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 95
 
Plan: relaxed Paleo
Stats: 194/154/154 Male 177 cm
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Germany
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleoDeano
If people were hunters they learned to eat animals, and they would have scoffed at eating anything else, as even some surviving tribes, like the Masai of Africa do to this day. They laugh at the concept of eating veggies... saying "that is for cows"!


So why did Weston A. Price find the Dinkas healthier than the Masai? Dinakas' diet consisted mainly of fish and, now it comes, whole grains.

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditi..._of_africa.html
Reply With Quote
  #106   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 18:05
Bat Spit Bat Spit is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 7,051
 
Plan: paleo-ish
Stats: 482/400/240 Female 68 inches
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: DC Area
Default

Quote:
You are referring to another time (not true paleolithic time) when you speak of all these different diets. The original human diet WAS animal food.


All true carnivors have much shorter intestines and lots of very sharp pointy teeth. Our friend the cat, for instance.

Humans are omnivours.

As much as I love the idea of never having to choke down another veggie, I have not seen enough empirical evidence offered in this argument to adopt it as a philosophy.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #107   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 18:09
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuleikaa
Another idea to think of...before there could be agriculture, as primitive as the first agriculture must have been, there must have been a selection from the wild of what to grow. That means that certain grasses, bulbs, fruits, and yes vegetables were growing and available in the wild.

And looking to todays woods and forests for sustenance is quite useless, the forests of today are domesticated and barren. And further, why limit yourself to this area/climate/continent. But you don't even have to look far past what was available in the forests and fields of North America when Native Americans were living in this country to see what might have been availble in the wild--onlions, garlic, cabbage, gourds, fruits and berries, greens, and yes even grasses/grains.
Just because there was non-animal food in the environment does NOT mean we ate it. It is pure logic that any animal that has the capabilities and opportunities to eat animals is going to do so. It is just a FACT that the higher up the food chain, the more concentrated nutrition there is. MAN... you guys REALLY LOVE your veggies, apparently!
Reply With Quote
  #108   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 18:11
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bat Spit
All true carnivors have much shorter intestines and lots of very sharp pointy teeth.
Or very sharp pointy sticks!
Reply With Quote
  #109   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 18:50
PaleoDeano's Avatar
PaleoDeano PaleoDeano is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,582
 
Plan: antivegan,was subzerocarb
Stats: 200/187/175 Male 6' 0"
BF:27%/19%/12%
Progress: 52%
Location: Flyover Zone
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quax
So why did Weston A. Price find the Dinkas healthier than the Masai? Dinakas' diet consisted mainly of fish and, now it comes, whole grains.

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditi..._of_africa.html
From this same article:

Largely vegetarian Bantu tribes such as the Kikuyu and Wakamba were agriculturists. Their diet consisted of sweet potatoes, corn, beans, bananas, millet and Kafir corn or sorghum. They were less robust than their meat-eating neighbors, and tended to be dominated by them.
Reply With Quote
  #110   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 19:01
quax's Avatar
quax quax is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 95
 
Plan: relaxed Paleo
Stats: 194/154/154 Male 177 cm
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Germany
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleoDeano
From this same article:

Largely vegetarian Bantu tribes such as the Kikuyu and Wakamba were agriculturists. Their diet consisted of sweet potatoes, corn, beans, bananas, millet and Kafir corn or sorghum. They were less robust than their meat-eating neighbors, and tended to be dominated by them.


And???

According to Price:

Masai=carnivores -> healthy
Dinkas=omnivores -> very healthy
Buntu=vegetarian -> not healthy

But this all still doesn't tell us whether our direct ancestors 2 million years ago were carnivores or omnivores. Most anthropologists say omnivores. Since you and TheBear challenge this it's up to you to give EVIDENCE, and not just well formulated posts/essays, on whether this holds true or not.
Reply With Quote
  #111   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 19:13
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,843
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Quote:
Just because there was non-animal food in the environment does NOT mean we ate it. It is pure logic that any animal that has the capabilities and opportunities to eat animals is going to do so. It is just a FACT that the higher up the food chain, the more concentrated nutrition there is. MAN... you guys REALLY LOVE your veggies, apparently!

If that is true, then why isn't there a single, carnivorous primate out there? They range from omnivores to vegetarians and insectovores. You'd think there would be at least ONE!

Your logic sounds good, to you, but I'd really like you to go back in time and explain it to pre-history dude and get his reaction. He'd probably be real flattered that you thought they could bring home the bacon every single day, day in, day out.
Reply With Quote
  #112   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-06, 19:27
quax's Avatar
quax quax is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 95
 
Plan: relaxed Paleo
Stats: 194/154/154 Male 177 cm
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Germany
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theBear
Now- About a year ago a team of archeologists exhumed the bones of a Neanderthal family in France and subjected the bones to a complete chemical analysis. These bones had a composition which matched the composition of the African lion, and not those of later hunter-gathers or neolithic peoples. Thus LESS than about 4-5% of the diet could have come from any vegetable source. I do not remember any sexual differentiation in the article I read at that time.


I'm puzzled now. This evidence refers to 30.000 years ago. Furthermore it refers to Neanderthals, not us.
BBC News states that this particular study showed that 90% of the PROTEIN intake came from meat. It does not mention carbohydrates at all. It's therefore difficult to draw conclusions about the entire food mix. However, for your initial claim that we are carnivores this is pretty irrelevant since the study refers to Neanderthals.

I have to add this:

In your first post you say:
Code:
Basically it states that humans were totally hunting peoples until the end of the paleolithic age. No paleolithic archeological dig has ever produced any food residues from vegetables. Chemical analysis of bones from the digs indicates they are the same composition as the African lion- thus, virtually no intake of vegetation. There were no 'hunter-gatherer' societies until the neolithic, even though some modern HG tribes still made and used typical paleolithic napped-stone tools. The so called Nearthin and Paleodiet thus are both nonsense, true paleolithic people were total carnivores and ate no veggies whatsoever.


Is this statement based on the Neanderthal study?

Last edited by quax : Tue, Feb-28-06 at 19:36.
Reply With Quote
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:00.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.