No announcement yet.

Studies that support the Primal Diet?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Why on earth would someone waste time foraging for high-fiber, low-carbohydrate vegetation? To a hunter-gatherer, food is fuel, and a potato is much better fuel than broccoli. We are only able to eat them in significant quantity because agriculture makes it easy for us. Then there's the fact that vegetation carries a higher toxin load than starchy tubers and roots (it's why grazing animals in the wild take a little bit of this plant, a little bit of that: it spreads the load among different toxins).

    I'm sure they ate grubs and small game, but big game would have been prized for providing much more sustenance for a modest increase in effort. Some American Indian tribes would deliberately stampede buffalo into a ravine; I'm sure others had equally efficient ways to get lots of animal product. This would then be preserved by salting, dehydrating, and/or surrounding it in fat (I'm sure there are other methods too).


    • #17
      The short answer to your question is : availability.

      Expanding on that, modern fruit and vegetables have been selectively bred for human consumption. Wild plant food is a lot rougher, higher in protein, higher in fiber and lower in carbohydrate.

      They wouldn't have eaten potatoes anyway, which are poisonous raw. Other, naturally occurring root vegetables are nowhere near as calorie dense.

      As far as the ratio of meat : plants, that is obviously a highly contentious question, and nobody really seems to know the answer. Some anatomical evidence seems to suggest we actually are evolved to eat more plants than meats. Other evidence seems to suggest the opposite. Who knows?

      I'm also don't doubt that large game kills were certainly highly prized and often consumed.
      Last edited by captaineight; 04-12-2011, 07:50 PM.


      • #18
        I may be in the minority, but I claim both ignorance and apathy... I don't know, and I don't care. What I do care about is what makes the most sense right now, and what to avoid, based on what we can know about recent history.

        Besides, if we really could go back 10,000 years, or even 50-100K, would we really want to? I suspect most of us would find dinner a bit gross.

        The Paleo/Primal view gives us a logical frame of reference. There are different ways to look at it, and I'm fine with that. Modern examples of primitive living show variances in animals/plants as food, and there is no reason to believe other wise for Grok and his cousins.

        Just as important, knowledge of how diet has changed since agriculture gives us clues to seek out what may have gone adding too many grains and bread, and more recently, higher sugar content in fruit and refined sugar in nearly everything.

        Add it altogether and make your best choice. That's what matters more than copying something in the past exactly as is was, and we don't really know anyway.