Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paleolithic Diet May Have Included Grains According To New Findings

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I think it's more like a club here than a cult. I see here, not only questioning of aspects of the PB, but endless discussions on aspects of the primal diet that Mark himself either didn't think of, or didn't emphasize as much. Granted, most of us admire his work, deservedly so. This doesn't mean he has everything nailed down perfectly, and I'm pretty sure he'd be the first to admit it.

    Comment


    • #32
      Agriculture as we know it had to evolve over time. Man didn't just grab a rake and hoe one day and start planting rows of wheat and corn. The idea for using grains to create edible food had to start from one small idea, probably out of necessity. After having success in creating something edible to fill his stomach the idea of replicating it had to happen. The fact that a mortar and pestle was found in a cave doesn’t mean they sat around eating toast and jam all day. What it means is man found a new way to survive in less than ideal situations. What was probably a necessary evil to see these tribes or families through tough times should not be a staple of our diet. Look at the chronic health problems that have been observed since the wide spread use of agriculture.

      If you pay attention to this article it has a very anti low carb anti Atkins anti Primal anti paleo diet sentiment in it right from the first sentence. Notice that he tells you how "Humanity’s Stone Age ancestors, long thought to have practiced a prehistoric version of the Atkins diet, may have eaten a balanced diet after all.” I can't help but feel that the author of the article had an agenda to fill and it wasn't to present the facts about an archeological find. He wanted to defend his cake and eat it too.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by codeguy
        For better or worse, argriculture made us what we are today. You probably wouldn't be looking at a computer right now or driving a car. Agriculture allowed man to stop wandering, stay in one place, store food, and have time to do other things other than chase food to survive. This allowed the formation of groups and tribes that became civilizations. Having more time on his hands to concentrate on other thing other than survival, neolithic man created new and better tools to make life easier....soon there was law, literacy, the arts, and so on. Those with genes that couldn't adapt to the new food died, and those who did passed those genes to further generations. It is widely accepted that man was pressured into agriculture in the face of dwindling game. Throughout the Neolithic, meat and fat were still highly prized...availability was the problem. Many species of large game died out with an overall warming of the planet. And, in spite of the fact the human population was relatively small, many smaller game species were hunted nearly to extinction. Like it or not, agriculture saved our asses.
        There's plenty of half-truth, untruth, poor reasoning, and flat out bullshit in this post.

        Comment


        • #34
          I think we're going to see more information (and argument) emerge over the coming years about what constituted Paleo diet(s) as the subject receives more attention and investigation. It's quite possible that all the facts aren't in yet. Thinking back on Cordain's "original" Paleo diet it excluded grains, tubers, dairy and saturated fat and emphasised lean meat, fibrous vegetables, and fruit(?). The Paleo community built on that work, investigated, reasoned and experimented before coming to the realisation (I hesitate to say consensus) that there was probably a place for tubers, dairy and saturated fat in a Paleo/Primal diet. Based on that past transformation I would be hesitant to try and crystallise our understanding of Paleo diets too soon.

          Paleo/Primal has definitely become more inclusive of foodstuffs as the movement/theory matures. Party line at this time seems to exclude only excess omega six, excess fructose and all grain; even starch has growing acceptance within the community. We shouldn't have any sacred cows, we owe it to ourselves to openly question the most fundamental aspects of this theory, but I fear that we already have a fundamentalists absolutism when it comes to grains.

          I just want to examine the idea that we are ill-equipped to eat grains because we didn't evolve the biological hardware required to deal with cellulose, lectins and phytates. To me this seems much like an analog of the argument that we didn't evolve to eat meat because we didn't evolve biological hardware such as fangs, claws, speed or huge musculature. We know the hole in this argument, we evolved such means outside of our bodies, we developed tools, we mastered weaponry, fire and communication. At least consider the idea that we didn't evolve the biological hardware to deal with grains internally (multiple stomachs, phytase/cellulase enzymes) because we didn't have to, rather, we evolved (albiet quite recently) certain technologies to do that for us, i.e. soaking, fermenting, milling, cooking. I hope some of us will see the similarity.

          Yes, I am suggesting that grains may not be inherently detrimental to human health when prepared and consumed with the right technology, just as we need the right technology to catch and prepare many types of game. I am also suggesting there is a way to reconcile that with our evolutionary history and current biological condition.

          Just for the record, I am pro sat/mono animal fat (whatever comes along for the ride), pro dairy, I consider starch to be benign (pro tater???), I'm skeptical about the benefits of n3 (I'd rather minimise n6), I'm indifferent about fruit and veg but I think they're fairly benign, I minimise my fructose and I enjoy as much or as little white rice, and unbleached sourdough bread as I need to round out a meal.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Wilkinator View Post
            I think we're going to see more information (and argument) emerge over the coming years about what constituted Paleo diet(s) as the subject receives more attention and investigation. It's quite possible that all the facts aren't in yet. Thinking back on Cordain's "original" Paleo diet it excluded grains, tubers, dairy and saturated fat and emphasised lean meat, fibrous vegetables, and fruit(?). The Paleo community built on that work, investigated, reasoned and experimented before coming to the realisation (I hesitate to say consensus) that there was probably a place for tubers, dairy and saturated fat in a Paleo/Primal diet. Based on that past transformation I would be hesitant to try and crystallise our understanding of Paleo diets too soon.

            Paleo/Primal has definitely become more inclusive of foodstuffs as the movement/theory matures. Party line at this time seems to exclude only excess omega six, excess fructose and all grain; even starch has growing acceptance within the community. We shouldn't have any sacred cows, we owe it to ourselves to openly question the most fundamental aspects of this theory, but I fear that we already have a fundamentalists absolutism when it comes to grains.

            I just want to examine the idea that we are ill-equipped to eat grains because we didn't evolve the biological hardware required to deal with cellulose, lectins and phytates. To me this seems much like an analog of the argument that we didn't evolve to eat meat because we didn't evolve biological hardware such as fangs, claws, speed or huge musculature. We know the hole in this argument, we evolved such means outside of our bodies, we developed tools, we mastered weaponry, fire and communication. At least consider the idea that we didn't evolve the biological hardware to deal with grains internally (multiple stomachs, phytase/cellulase enzymes) because we didn't have to, rather, we evolved (albiet quite recently) certain technologies to do that for us, i.e. soaking, fermenting, milling, cooking. I hope some of us will see the similarity.

            Yes, I am suggesting that grains may not be inherently detrimental to human health when prepared and consumed with the right technology, just as we need the right technology to catch and prepare many types of game. I am also suggesting there is a way to reconcile that with our evolutionary history and current biological condition.

            Just for the record, I am pro sat/mono animal fat (whatever comes along for the ride), pro dairy, I consider starch to be benign (pro tater???), I'm skeptical about the benefits of n3 (I'd rather minimise n6), I'm indifferent about fruit and veg but I think they're fairly benign, I minimise my fructose and I enjoy as much or as little white rice, and unbleached sourdough bread as I need to round out a meal.
            Your outside/inside argument analogy is not perfect because our digestive system is like a carnivores and it is made to digest meat. Just making tools to allow us to break down grain doesn't change the fact that we lack the proper digestive makeup.
            A steak a day keeps the doctor away

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Roach View Post
              There's plenty of half-truth, untruth, poor reasoning, and flat out bullshit in this post.
              That could well be the case, but you'd be more convincing if you addressed codeguy's post point by point rather than making accusatory remarks without further qualification.

              Comment


              • #37
                I agree that our digestive system is like a carnivores, very similar to a bears I understand, bears are opportunistic omnivores though? Anyway, I digress. Also agreed that we lack the proper digestive make up, we simply can't chow down on a handfull of cracked wheat berries and expect to get away with it. However we can we can break it down mechanically, remove the bran (removes most of the lectins?), we can pre-digest it with a slow-ferment (eliminates some proportion of the phytate), and we can cook it....which is also important for the bio-availability but I've forgotten why right now, ha! At the end of that process you have something which is possibly as benign as a peeled and cooked tater, just a "clean" source of starch, nothing more, nothing less. All technological solutions rather than biological adaptation, and at the risk of repeating myself I'll just reiterate that technological solutions are the reason we also enjoyed a meat heavy diet in Paleolithic times.

                I don't mind being called out on a factual error, I'm by no means an expert.
                Last edited by Wilkinator; 10-20-2010, 02:15 AM. Reason: refinement

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Wilkinator View Post
                  I agree that our digestive system is like a carnivores, very similar to a bears I understand, bears are opportunistic omnivores though? Anyway, I digress. Also agreed that we lack the proper digestive make up, we simply can't chow down on a handfull of cracked wheat berries and expect to get away with it. However we can we can break it down mechanically, remove the bran (removes most of the lectins?), we can pre-digest it with a slow-ferment (eliminates some proportion of the phytate), and we can cook it....which is also important for the bio-availability but I've forgotten why right now, ha! At the end of that process you have something which is possibly as benign as a peeled and cooked tater, just a "clean" source of starch, nothing more, nothing less. All technological solutions rather than biological adaptation, and at the risk of repeating myself I'll just reiterate that technological solutions are the reason we also enjoyed a meat heavy diet in Paleolithic times.

                  I don't mind being called out on a factual error, I'm by no means an expert.
                  Wilkinator, I like your style.

                  Please stick around although you may get called out as a troll by the paleotard mob.

                  Forgive them they don't (won't?) know any better.
                  Don't be a paleotard...

                  http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...oxidation.html

                  http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...torage-qa.html

                  http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...rn-fat-qa.html

                  http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...-you-need.html

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Wilkinator you bring up an interesting point...

                    Bears are actually a pretty fair comparison to humans since they are classic examples of omnivores and exhibit a wide range of adaptive subsistence strategies just like us. In the far north you have the polar bear that consumes primarily a meat-based diet just like their traditional human counterparts (no-brainer there) and then you also have the panda bear in China that is primarily herbivorous. A bear's digestive tract is similar in length to humans and just like us they cannot digest cellulose, yet plant matter still forms a large part of their natural diet. Grizzly bears derive approximately 80-90% of their nutrition from plants... mostly berries, roots, tubers, and so on... and of course this is based on seasonal availability just like the paleolithic human diet would have been.

                    Jim

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Wilkinator View Post
                      That could well be the case, but you'd be more convincing if you addressed codeguy's post point by point rather than making accusatory remarks without further qualification.
                      Meh. I've been on enough forums to know it's not a good idea to attempt a proper discussion via the internetz. Thanks for your two cents though.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Vozz View Post
                        in all the posts you make about this you keep posting a link to the same article over and over, and yet provide no other evidence.

                        do you have only one source of info to back up your argument?
                        (a story which has been ripped apart numerous times now)

                        or are you going to keep listening to one source of info like....omg....a cult!

                        do you have any facts which support your claim that we are all wrong and that grains (as in wheat or oats etc. not as in starch sources such as roots or potatoes) are healthy and disprove the claims we make about grains such as wheat?
                        And if that one source happens to be The Daily Mail??? Even worse!

                        Carrie

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X