I wouldn't call that uncontacted tribe 'paleo'. According to the article that was referenced, "The pictures were taken by Brazil’s Indian Affairs Department, which has authorized Survival to use them as part of its campaign to protect their territory. They reveal a thriving, healthy community with baskets full of manioc and papaya fresh from their gardens." Gardens are a neolithic invention.

A somewhat related matter. A few weeks ago my mother threw away some pieces of half rotten sweet potatoes in the garden and now the sweet potatoes are trying to take over the garden. Question: How do you know when the potatoes are ready to be gathered? It doesn't surprise me that so many tribes have turned to gardening. You don't have to do anything other than keep coming back to the place where the potatoes are growing. These plants are very self-sufficient.

I apologize for going OT, but this whole things irritates the hell out of me. It is unbelievably paternalistic and condescending for these people to "protect" these tribes. If the pilot of that plane falls and breaks his leg tomorrow, he'll be okay. If one of these tribesmen falls out of a tree and sustains a compound fracture tomorrow, he'll probably die. Who the hell gives these people the right to "protect" anyone from civilization?

That said (and out of my system, thank you), starches do not make you fat. People on the McDougall diet eat mostly starches and lose lots of weight. I avoid them because they cause me back pain and insatiable sweet cravings. But that's just me. This whole subject is unbelievably deep and confusing.

I'm not sure who you're talking about but I'm not sure I'd necessarily want to participate in civilization if it meant the sort of life that so many H&G's ended up with, forced into cities and poverty, crowding, diseases, etc. They don't get to participate in civ. with SUV's, backyard pools, gated communities and comprehensive health care.

I'd rather take my chances with the broken leg and hope that people had good enough herbal lore they could deal with the injury. Or if not, then at least my life was possibly short and happy.

Hi there Mirrorball,

That's interesting about the original recipe containing fermentation. Where would I find the original recipe??? Do you have it anywhere or could you just tell me what the original Brazilian rolls are called and I could look it up myself. I am really into gluten-free baking at the moment and this would be interesting!!!

Fermentation breaks down the nutrients in grains and makes them much more palatable and less harmful to humans. This is why - in my humble opinion - traditional societies bothered to go to all the trouble to prepare grains in an extremely laborious and time-consuming fashion - because they knew it was necessary.

Today, we modern humans seem to have lost that culinary wisdom and seem to think it is perfectly OK to cook grains in the fastest possible way, meaning that they are more poisonous.

amanda

amanda

In Brazilian Portuguese they are called "pão de queijo". Here is a general formula:

1 kg manioc starch (fermented or not, but fermented is tastier IMO)
500 g Brazilian cheese, coarsely grated (it's semi hard, mildly flavoured -- Parmesan is NOT a good substitute)
500 ml milk
230 g butter
6 eggs
25-30 g salt

Boil the milk, butter and salt, pour the liquid slowly over the manioc starch and mix. When the mixture has cooled a bit, add the eggs, beat, then add the cheese. Make the rolls and put them on an ungreased baking sheet. Bake at 450 degrees for 10 minutes and at 400 degrees for about 20 minutes.

BEWARE. These are very addictive and very high in calories.

Yep, I was confused once as well. I believe that some CAN lose weight and do just fine on high carbs, but I could argue very successfully that these folks are near the edge of the metabolic bell curve. Just look at the experiment called the Standard American Diet (SAD).

I also wonder:

1) Do these high carb weight-losers experience constant hunger?
2) Are they highly supervised (i.e., go into treatment)?
3) What is their health status, other than excess weight, or, more important
4) What is their health, post losing weight, and
5) Do they tend to gain the weight back?

I got a lot more questions, but my point is somewhat akin to yours, HappyLC: some people do well, but the nutshell forces me to ask about the wider picture and long term health implications.

According to the folks who espouse the high carb way, I should be dead by now. Instead, I'm thriving while many of them seem to be failing to thrive. (I'm talking about the SAD diet here.)

Not all high-carb diets are the same. The SAD isn't even particularly high-carb, and it's also high in trans fats, fructose, refined foods, omega 6, gluten grains, it's low in vitamins, antioxidants, omega 3 etc.

Thanks for this recipe!!!

amanda

I agree that it is perhaps high in trans fats, fructose refined foods, etc., etc. However, I disagree with you about it not necessarily being high carb. The SAD is fraught with carbs, and most of them are highly processed and laden with HFCS. Do a little of your own research: Go to a grocery store (a regular one or a "healthy" one that most American's go to like Wal Mart or Piggly Wiggly, WHole Foods, etc.) and observe what's in the baskets of others. Go to a restaurant, even a so-called "healthy" one and observe the average fare. Then ask yourself, What "percentage" of calories are from carbs here? Not volume, not this number of items vs that number of items, but What percentage of calories?

I'm always amused by those who will freely admit that carbs are what they need to cut in order to feel better and be healthier, but then in the next breath insist that THEIR carbs are okay (i.e., the oatmeal eaters, the potato eaters, the [insert your favorite carb here]-eaters). (The "whole grain" folks are the real brainwashed ones.)

On another note: I agree that the planting and harvesting of starches is neolithic. So I should rephrase my earlier contention that these starches can be Paleo to a degree and unless they become a dominant source of calories.

The definitions are forever unfolding. When in doubt go back to evolution for guidance.

The SAD is high in carbs, but the average Kitavan for instance eats more carbs and less fat than the average American. The difference is that, as you said, the carbs are not highly processed and laden with HFCS. And they don't eat a lot of grains either.

American adults got 45%-52% of their calories from carbs and 31-35% from fat in 2005-2006. I don't need to do my own research, there's government data on this. You can see the SAD is not particularly high-carb and low-fat.

Not me, I didn't cut carbs, just the bad ones. Though maybe I eat too much fruit from time to time...

For the record I went from 35% bodyfat down to about 18% now. I do under 100 grams of carbs a day. My family (father is about 55, mother is 60, father was "obese" in BMI) has also had success with the same diet.

Sorry...I have an annoying tendency to assume everyone else knows whatever's going on in my head at the moment. Shortly before reading this thread I had seen a BBC video (involving aerial footage) on this same tribe, in which the pilot of the plane doing the flyover explained how we must "protect" these people from modern civilization. That's what I was reacting to.

And there must be something between "poverty, crowding, diseases, etc." and "SUV's, backyard pools and gated communities". If it were me, I'd like to be given the choice between modern medicine (which is supremely equipped to deal with emergency intervention) and herbal lore.

It's a very tough question, but I just don't like the idea of taking choice away from people, even if the motive is to protect them.

Okay, I just don't know many people who trust much of what the us gov produces these days. I work for a large social research company and I personally know that government studies aren't to be trusted.

And I suppose it's important to that you don't consider 45%-52% as high carb. I'm glad I know where you're coming from on this. But I'm not sure how you arrive at this being not high carb. To me, low carb is 20% or less, and 10% is more ideal. But it is rather subjective.

I don't believe that I said SAD was low-fat. Just high carb (relative to my definition).

I consider 45%-52% high-carb, I just said it's not particularly high-carb. I mean, some diets are even higher-carb and don't cause nearly as many diseases.