Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OMG Paleolithic Man Ate Grains

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

  • OMG Paleolithic Man Ate Grains

    NOT!

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...93107.abstract

    This is the abstract for about 5 articles that have been posted, some of which claiming that there was processing of grain-like foods. The authors state that "evidence for plant consumption is rare," and that's what they are claiming this is, evidence of plant processing and comsumption. Not grains.


    Although, I would suggest that you all change your diets immediately to look more like this:
    http://web.mit.edu/athletics/sportsm...crfoodpyr.html
    because it is nice and balanced on it's big ol' grain-fattened ass.

  • #2
    And of course, the media outlets now take that data and twist it. Yahoo is reporting that "Bread was around 30,000 years ago" then talks about a flour made from plant roots:

    “Europeans ground down plant roots similar to potatoes to make flour, which was later whisked into dough.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101018/...nm/india522760
    Last edited by barryman9000; 10-19-2010, 09:21 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by barryman9000 View Post
      And of course, the media outlets now take that data and twist it. Yahoo is reporting that "Bread was around 30,000 years ago" then talks about a flour made from root plants.

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101018/...nm/india522760
      RAAAGE. haha

      Oh well, more meat and anti-aging for us then.

      Comment


      • #4
        We present evidence of starch grains from various wild plants on the surfaces of grinding tools at the sites of Bilancino II (Italy), Kostenki 16–Uglyanka (Russia), and Pavlov VI (Czech Republic).
        From the first link YOU posted. How foolish do you feel now?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by AdrianP View Post
          From the first link YOU posted. How foolish do you feel now?
          Not my link, but I don't feel foolish:

          Starch Grain: "This organelle is commonly found in subterranean storage organs, such as tubers (potatoes), corms (taro & dasheen), and storage roots (sweet potatoes). ..." http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/educat.../glossary.html

          I think every Anthropology book I've read since the 90's has stated that Paleo people ate roots and tubers when they could find them. Some "root" bread is very different from a diet comprised of 60% wheat, corn and soy.

          The fact that we used to grind them up is pretty cool though. Not really that shocking, but interesting.
          Last edited by barryman9000; 10-19-2010, 10:10 AM. Reason: added last sentence

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by adrianp View Post
            from the first link you posted. How foolish do you feel now?


            as in grains of starch.

            as in grain of sand

            as in grain of brain cell used to figure that out

            Comment


            • #7
              But the stones' wear patterns suggest they were used for grinding roots and grains in a manner similar to a pestle 18,000 years before that, according to Dr Anna Revedin and colleagues.
              Grain residues on the stones seem to originate from mostly cattail and fern plants which are rich in starch - a dense source of carbohydrates and energy.
              'The discovery of grain and plant residues on grinding stones at the three sites suggests plant-based food processing, and possibly flour production, was common and widespread across Europe at least 30,000 years ago.'
              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...just-meat.html

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lcme View Post
                as in grain of brain cell used to figure that out
                Which you seem to be severely lacking. Brain cells are usually a requirement for reading AND comprehension.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by barryman9000 View Post
                  Not my link, but I don't feel foolish:
                  .
                  You should.

                  Nice try, but FAIL.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Okie dokie troll.

                    I doubt that you are of academic background from the way that you talk, but if you are able to obtain access to the paper I would read it. There is a table clearly outlining the plant species that were processed on the mortar, as well as what part of that plant was processed. The authors conclude that this is evidence of plant processing in the face of prior evidence that mainly showed animal consumption.

                    The grains (as in granules) obtained were mostly from cattails and ferns. The part of the plant processed was roots, rhizomes, seeds and caryopsis. Caryopsis is the equivalent of modern cereal "grains," but this was one sample and most were processed roots or rhizomes.

                    What you failed to grasp from my post is that mainstream media has taken the grain message and run with it. I in no way doubt that there was some processing of cereal grains in the Palaeolithic age. We didn't progress into the Neolithic age on one magical day.

                    I bid you adieu. Please feel free to insult me at least 3 more times. I hope that no one else will respond to you and that this thread, and the attention that you're craving can just go away.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by AdrianP View Post
                      Brain cells are usually a requirement for reading AND comprehension.
                      Yes, and your statement proves that you have no brain cells. Thank-you for pointing out your lack of intelligence.

                      This is not the first time you been here with the intention of personally attacking members (for you are not here to learn and read). Like a wolf, your prey on your enemies. You are nothing but a troll, and the your lack of wisdom and understanding are remarkable.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by AdrianP View Post
                        You should.

                        Nice try, but FAIL.
                        ZING! Haha, I just had a flashback to 3rd grade recess on the playground - "Nuh-uh, you are!"

                        Trolls are funny. Especially when they read but don't think or comprehend. I'm with @Icme, last post, don't bother replying (most likely by saying "No, you're a Zing!") because I'm out.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I suspect I'm about to sound like a complete jerk.

                          You're absolutely right that most of the varieties of starch particles found were from roots and whatnot. And that the media probably just saw the word "grains" and went crazy with it. I'm not justifying those people.

                          But for the sake of accuracy... they do mention that some of the starch grains seem to have come from the caryopses (if that's the correct plural form) of Gramineae. Which would make them actual cereal grains. Sure, it's just one type of plant matter out of a bunch, but it makes up 10-15% of the total grains they found (I'm estimating from figure 2A). Then again, as the authors themselves point out, the plant material they find is likely to be the most recently used, not the most frequently used.

                          It doesn't make all these news articles any less ridiculous, unfortunately. *sigh*
                          "mayness, you need to have a siggy line that says "Paleo Information Desk" or something!" -FMN <3

                          I'm blogging again, at least a little bit.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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!
                            We need to have a global discussion about the epidemic of donut murder

                            Starting Weight: 238 lb
                            Current Weight: 224 lb
                            Goal: 190-200 lb
                            Height: 6'-0"
                            Age: 27

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mayness View Post
                              But for the sake of accuracy... they do mention that some of the starch grains seem to have come from the caryopses (if that's the correct plural form) of Gramineae. Which would make them actual cereal grains. Sure, it's just one type of plant matter out of a bunch, but it makes up 10-15% of the total grains they found (I'm estimating from figure 2A). Then again, as the authors themselves point out, the plant material they find is likely to be the most recently used, not the most frequently used.
                              I addressed that later. My problem is definitely in the wording of my original post where I am definitely implying that there were no grains found. I was just responding quickly because I am pissed that people writing the articles are acting like they found that grains played a huge role palaeolithic nutrition.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X