Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paleolithic Diet May Have Included Grains According To New Findings

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

  • Paleolithic Diet May Have Included Grains According To New Findings

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...eolithic-diet/

  • #2
    This is the fifth thread on this article.

    The title of the article is misleading. They were starches, not grains.
    A steak a day keeps the doctor away

    Comment


    • #3
      Discovered: mortar and pestle, some grains. Therefore Paleolithic man could make pizza, and challah bread.

      Discovered: wooly rhinoceros bones among artifacts in Paleolithic habitations. Therefore Primitive people kept wooly rhinoceros as pets and possibly used them to assist in hunts.


      Facetious, I know, but my 'leap' is as good as their 'leap'.
      Tayatha om bekandze

      Bekandze maha bekandze

      Randza samu gate soha

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm sure that, when times were hard and animals not easy to find, various starches would have been found , processed and eaten. It doesn't mean that they were a staple.

        Nor does the fact that these findings were in parts of Europe mean that they were universally used - was Europe not in the throes of a glacial period? I understood that it was from somewhere round 44000 BC to 12000 BC, at its worst around 18000 BC. So, if they were going into a period of bad climate, animals few and ferns etc abundant - what more natural than they would eat the starches provided by plants rather than starve.

        This is quite different to hypothecating a diet largely based on "grains" (they are NOT GRAINS that have been found, surely?) and consisting of arctic hare pizza, rabbit ravioli or wild pig pie.
        Last edited by breadsauce; 10-19-2010, 12:44 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          I love how people jump all over the obscure bit of evidence that man may have consumed grains in the Paleolithic......the fact is, it may have happened, we can't say for sure, what we can say for sure is that it wasn't a major dietary staple until man actively started cultivating it. Evidence has shown time and time again that pre-historic man lived off hunting and gathering, thus it would make far greater sense that in such societies meat/fat/marrow would be highly valued and sought after due to nutritional and caloric density.
          My whole life, I've felt like an animal......but I've ignored my instincts. I ignored what I really am. That will never happen again.

          My blog

          Comment


          • #6
            At best, this evidence would seem to support the idea of a wide range of macronutrient ratios being viable for human health.

            Notice the grains in question have no relation to wheat. And of course, they are also quite unrefined.

            Still, it is an interesting finding. I'm glad the researchers are working on things like this -- more information can only make our choices better informed.

            Comment


            • #7
              Four posts, no commentary.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Lojasmo View Post
                Four posts, no commentary.

                i didn't see the need for commentary. it's pretty obvious what was being implied. i tend to agree with what everyone has said, i just wanted to see what others thought about it. i think it's important to always be looking for new information, even if it means altering your currently held beliefs and lifestyle. this obviously isn't a blow to the primal/paleo theory, but perhaps further discoveries could help shape it differently, and help advance our understanding of nutrition and genetic predispositions.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I found this same article and posted it. I don't care if they found man eating grains 100,000 years ago. That doesn't mean I will switch back to eating them. I feel better without them, and I will stay this way.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I've seen this story alot over the internet, think "Big Ag" is behind this? Just a thought. I don't care for the most part, I will keep doing what I'm doing as I am far healthier for it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by john_e_turner_ii View Post
                      I found this same article and posted it. I don't care if they found man eating grains 100,000 years ago. That doesn't mean I will switch back to eating them. I feel better without them, and I will stay this way.
                      Of course you will. That is what cult followers do. They suspend all belief and follow blindly.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by gator70 View Post
                        I've seen this story alot over the internet, think "Big Ag" is behind this? Just a thought. I don't care for the most part, I will keep doing what I'm doing as I am far healthier for it.
                        Yeah "Big Ag" is behind it. Everybody is out to get you. There is evil lurking everywhere. Enemies are behind every bush. LOL. They want to pry away your nitrite filled bacon. DON'T LET THEM DO IT. This is your way of life. You must FIGHT.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by AdrianP View Post
                          Of course you will. That is what cult followers do. They suspend all belief and follow blindly.
                          You are obviously a troll.

                          However, you actually make a decent point. It's important for all of us to always evaluate new information and combine it with what we know to be true for our own bodies. If someone feels healthier without grains, why would that person add them back in because MAYBE our ancestors ate them?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by bob loblaw View Post
                            You are obviously a troll.

                            However, you actually make a decent point. It's important for all of us to always evaluate new information and combine it with what we know to be true for our own bodies. If someone feels healthier without grains, why would that person add them back in because MAYBE our ancestors ate them?
                            On the contrary I think 90% of the posters on here are trolls. You have to be a real brainwashed nutcase to think that bacon is better for you than fruit for example.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by AdrianP View Post
                              On the contrary I think 90% of the posters on here are trolls. You have to be a real brainwashed nutcase to think that bacon is better for you than fruit for example.
                              Look at a history of your posts and theres no substance whatsoever. All you do is troll and call people cult members without anything to actually base an argument from other than insults. You'd think you would have something better to do.

                              Oh well, you can go back to base and report to PETA that you did your best.
                              5-24-10 ................ 5-24-11
                              Weight: 281.......... Weight: 203

                              10-11-10
                              Weight: 259
                              Total Cholesterol: 243
                              LDL: 188
                              HDL: 40
                              Trig: 96

                              2-18-11
                              Weight: 228
                              Total Cholesterol: 239
                              LDL: 183 (calc), 138 (actual)
                              HDL: 46
                              Trig: 49

                              6-23-11
                              Weight: 197.2
                              Total Cholesterol: 225
                              LDL: 161 (calc), 120 (actual)
                              HDL: 56
                              Trig: 38

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X