Has anyone ever heard of this? I have a friend who I used to row with and she now is exclusively a figure competitor [whore...lol]. Anyways, she was telling me about this thing called eating paleo and I was wondering if any of you have ever tried it as I'm considering it. Though, I feel it would be really hard. Especially because I love carbs in the form of breads, grains, starchy veggies, etc. I also love cheese. Though she said I could incorporate cheese if I absolutely couldn't part with it. Anywho, wondering what you all thought.
I have a friend who's doing it, very similar to the "caveman" diet i think it was called a few years back. Basically it's eating what paleolithic humans would have... lots of raw foods, very few processed foods. It seems healthy for sure, but it is VERY restrictive, especially if you are at all social outside the home... Good luck if you decide to try it!
Well i you think about it, it's what our digestive systems have evolved to eat. Though I would think less Paleolithic and more Bronze age. Bronze age is more recent, and they did have goats and sheep as far as I know, so goats milk and cheese could be incorporated.
It's a diet I'm very interested in trying myself actually. But if I do I will also take a vitmain each day to make absolutely sure I'm safe for vitamins.
Remmeber that people in those times lived MUCH shorter lives. 30-40 was a typical age for death. Diet would have played some part in such short lives, as it depended on what was and was not available, so do be careful if you try it as the change may not suit you , espescially if yu have any medical conditions ( you are pretty unlikely to drop dead from it at an early age though :P )
Last edited by honeythorn; 06-25-2010 at 05:46 PM.
Yes, my bf was doing it for a while and lost 20 lbs. As already stated, it's a VERY restrictive diet and once he started slacking it was downhill from there, and now he's just totally stopped it. He wants to start again, though because he says he feels great physically and has lots of energy while he's on it.
There's a book about it that you should read if you are seriously thinking about it. I can't remember the name of it or the author, but I'm sure you know which one I'm talking about. My bf said it's great (and he rarely reads) and it got him really excited about the diet initially.
There is the "80/20" rule for this plan that says that as long as you eat what you should 80% of the time and have treats (but not go crazy- I'm talking a slice of bread or a piece of cheese) 20% of the time, you will still be able to lose effectively. I personally could not stick to a diet that was that restrictive, but if you can then more power to you!
Last edited by fashinjunkie09; 06-25-2010 at 05:46 PM.
When you look at the archaeological evidence, the life span issue isn't as much of a criticism as appears on the surface. Because the causes of death actually point away from nutritional influences (except starvation during famine, or as a result of an injury that prevented the individual from gathering, hunting, or eating food - some groups fed such individuals and others left them to die).
Infant mortality plays a huge role (even today) in average life expectancies. In many countries, even in modern day, the average life expectancy can be low only because of infant mortality or early adulthood death rates (death by violence rather than death by illness or malnutrition).
There's a good bit of evidence that chronic illnesses such as arthritis, diabetes, tooth decay, autoimmune diseases and heart disease were extremely rare in the paleolithic. Mortality rates were hightest among infants, children, adolescent and young adults - so if you lived past age 20 or 25, you had an excellent chance of living nearly modern life expectancies.
People died sooner, but they also died healthier. Except during times of famine, they died most often as a result of traumatic injury (or infection as a result of injury). For women, childbirth was another risky and often fatal endeavor. Hypothermia and infectious diseases weren't entirely uncommon, but were seen most dramatically during migration (when people would not be used to the new environment, or would have no antibodies to a new infection).
If you google search, there is a whole FORUM for paleo followers. Some of them are super intense, some are just basic followers. It's interesting but in my opinion, not widespread/worldly practical. Not enough meat to sustain 6 billion people.
@Kaplods - There's actually no proof that our Grok-like ancestors died "healthier". Dying from hepatitis, polio, etc. is not my idea of "healthier." They just experienced different types of diseases which we can treat nowadays.
Personally, I don't think it's all the diet that matters. If you want to mimic Paleolithic people, then MOVEMENT and non-sedentary lifestyles is a huge part too. They gathered, they farmed, they herded, they hunted. All the time. None of this sitting in your office 9-5, then sitting in traffic, then going home and sitting on the couch.
@Kaplods - There's actually no proof that our Grok-like ancestors died "healthier". Dying from hepatitis, polio, etc. is not my idea of "healthier." They just experienced different types of diseases which we can treat nowadays.
Personally, I don't think it's all the diet that matters. If you want to mimic Paleolithic people, then MOVEMENT and non-sedentary lifestyles is a huge part too. They gathered, they farmed, they herded, they hunted. All the time. None of this sitting in your office 9-5, then sitting in traffic, then going home and sitting on the couch.
Actually there's quite a bit of evidence that Grok did die healthier. The proof is in the research which is cited in a variety of sources (which aren't difficult to find at all, online or in the ancestor diet books). I didn't just read the books, I went to the research cited, and looked for contradicting opinions also (I was extremely skeptical when I first encountered ancestor diets more than 25 years ago. I expected the contradicting opinions to be more persuasive than I found).
I even went to nutritional anthropology sources, and was surprised to find more agreement than disagreement. It's fascinating stuff for anyone interested in anthropology.
Some of the books that had some of the best arguments (that would be of interest to dieters) include
Neanderthin
The Paleolithic Prescription
The Paleo diet
Good Calories, Bad Calories
Against the Grain
Life Without Bread
The End of Overeating
Refuse to Regain
Primal Blueprint (which I'm reading now)
So many titles on autoimmune and inflammatory disease, I lost count (almost all of the books on autoimmune and inflammatory disease).
Go directly to the research, and you'll find some very persuasive evidence, some even strong enough to consider "proof." It took me decades of exposure to the theory before I thought it had much merit, but the more interest I had in the subject, the more surprised I was at how strong the evidence is.
Also, I've never read any of the paleo arguments that argue that diet is the sole or even main component. Primal Blueprint is perhaps the best argument for the paleo lifestyle (which includes recommendations not only the diet, but exposure to sunlight, walking a lot, occasonally lifting heavy things and running fast, mental stimulation....).
Personally, I don't think it's all the diet that matters. If you want to mimic Paleolithic people, then MOVEMENT and non-sedentary lifestyles is a huge part too. They gathered, they farmed, they herded, they hunted. All the time. None of this sitting in your office 9-5, then sitting in traffic, then going home and sitting on the couch.
Just a wee point, but *not* farming is a defining feature of paleo life.
It's often said that actually paleo life was less work than an agricultural life, and they actually had more time for relaxation and play. I don't know if it's true. I don't think we know as much as we think we know about ancient times. But it's an interesting possibility.
Well farming had to come from SOMEWHERE. They had to have cultivated some sort of vegetables to transform into widespread agriculture. From what I've noticed about third world countries, agriculturally-based societies are fairly healthy. They're very active and eat a decently balanced diet, albeit more carb-based than protein-based since meat is harder to come by.
Well farming had to come from SOMEWHERE. They had to have cultivated some sort of vegetables to transform into widespread agriculture.
Well yeah, farming came along, but that is usually taken as the end of the paleo period. That's the whole point of emulating the paleo diet, is that it was pre-agricultural.
Well farming had to come from SOMEWHERE. They had to have cultivated some sort of vegetables to transform into widespread agriculture. From what I've noticed about third world countries, agriculturally-based societies are fairly healthy. They're very active and eat a decently balanced diet, albeit more carb-based than protein-based since meat is harder to come by.
Essentially paleolithic refers to "before farming," and neolithic (or "new stone age" refers to the period during which agriculture was developing)
Farming is actually a rather "new" invention. According to the fossil record, it appears that farming is only about 10,000 to 15,000 years old. This is the very basis for the paleolithic theory. That "farming" brought with it diseases that were previously unknown.
For example, the polio you mentioned has not been found in prehistoric (paleolithic) bones. The earliest archaeological evidence of polio is found in bones 4,000 to 5,000 years old - that is after farming was invented.
As farming practices (especially of grain crops) became more common place, another change was seen in the fossil record along with evidence of farming - . shorter lifespans, more signs of disease through the lifespan, especially diseases such as arthritis and periodontal disease, cavities, tooth loss...
Most of these diseases where unknown or virtually non-existent in the fossil record prior to the invention of farming. The polio you mentioned earlier was apparently not a paleolithic disease. The earliest known record of polio's occurence is around 5,000 to 4,000 years ago - well within the neolithic period (long after the invention of farming).
Likewise, hepatitis is not really a disease, but a symptom. It's an inflammation of the liver that can be caused by bacterial or viral infection, or as a result of liver toxicity. As a soft-tissue disease, we don't know much about paleolithic hepatitis - but diet is a known component of some forms of hepatitis. Studies have found that modern hunter-gatherer societies (those that do little to no farming) are much healthier than even the healthiest farming cultures in many respect - especially when you rule out differences in access to medical treatments such as inoccuation against communicable diseases.
I think it's Barbara Berkeley's book, Refuse to regain that best describes the progressive decline in the human diet. At least in my opinion. It's not so "sciencey" that you need a graduate degree to understand it, and not so dumbed down that it's meaningless. I'm repeating this from memory, so I'd recommend anyone wanting to understand it better than I can explain it - go directly to the book.
She talks of three "waves" of diet/health decline.
The first period (before the first "wave" of health decline)
Paleolithic (roughly 2 million to the invention of farming somewhere around 10,000 years or so ago). Hunter-gathering socieites. Most chronic "lifestyle" diseases were essentially non-existent. Life spans may even have been longer, health at death was noticeably better (fewer signs of wear and tear disease on the bones. Little tooth loss...)
First wave -the first wave of health decline is seen with the advent of farming, called the Neolithic period (the prehistoric period in which farming was becoming common place)
Height declined, and arthritis and dental disease started showing up in the fossil record.
The Second wave -the second wave occurs with the invention and affordibility of refined flours, refined sugar and other processed foods. Although technically sugar was first available in the 15th century (I believe), white flour and white sugar became affordable to the common person very recently (even 150 years ago white flour and white sugar were so expensive, it was kept locked - only the lady of the house had a key to the sugar chest).
This can be seen in the european history. Lifestyle (arguably nutrition-based) diseases such as gout and obesity plagued the monarchy and royalty (such as England's King Henry VIII, who lived from 1492 to 1548) who ate refined grain and sugar, than the peasantry (who even though they ate some grains, their diet also included far more low-carb, very high-fiber fodder. It is said that the cabbage was the primary diet of the peasantry).
The third wave, and by far the steepest (in which health problems are affecting the most people and the most severely) is what I believe she calls "new foods," or "modern foods" paired with the steepest decline in activity. While whole wheat bread is a food that is relatively new to the human diet - twinkies aren't anything at all like foods found in the natural environment.
According to Dr. Berkeley each wave has taken us further and further away from a natural diet and lifestyle - and I think it's the best way to look at healthy nutrition.
Start working backwards, and you'll see health improvements. Start eating and living like your parents, and you'll lose weight and improve your health.
Start eating like your grandparents, and you'll see even more.
Many people can probably live healthfully on great-grandma's diet. Other's may have to go all the way back to Grok, and most folks probably will end up somewhere in between.
But the number of health problems we've been seeing in the last 50 years suggests that we need to start that trek backwards. Eating 2010 style, is healthy for very few people. Some people may have to go back to 1900, some to 5,000 BC, and some may have to go back to Grok.
Paleo?
