Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why "primal" and not 19th century?

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

  • #16
    Agree. I question all advice given to me by anyone selling a product, and analyze their way of writing to dissect if they have a particular agenda. Beyond that, I'll look for ways they cherry-pick studies in order to bolster their theory. Such as Gary Taubes is famous for, Lustig too. Everything a person does can reveal their intentions, even without seeing their face.
    Make America Great Again

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Traderjodie View Post
      Hi everyone,

      I'm sorry if this is a silly question but everything I read states that the obesity epedemic in the US is a product of the late 20th century. If so, then why do we have to go all the way back to cave man days? Why not model a diet on what our great grandparents would have eaten? I assume that data would be more available? I'm really curious about why there is so little discussion about recreating a 19th century or turn of the century diet?

      Thanks all. This is a great site!

      -Jodie
      Because, as the Primal Blueprint explains, hunter-gatherers (if they didn't die of accidents) had a longer life span and were healthier than your grandparents. Your grandparents were part of an agricultural lifestyle (certainly much healthier than ours). When humans became agriculturalists their brains and bodies shrank. This can clearly be seen in the Massai of the 20th century who were not agriculturalists, were tall, lean, healthier and stronger than we are, and lived longer.
      "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

      Comment


      • #18
        Indeed. Individual biases and prejudices are also detrimental to acknowledging and relaying truth.
        | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

        “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Traderjodie View Post
          Hi everyone,
          I'm sorry if this is a silly question but everything I read states that the obesity epedemic in the US is a product of the late 20th century. If so, then why do we have to go all the way back to cave man days? Why not model a diet on what our great grandparents would have eaten? I assume that data would be more available? I'm really curious about why there is so little discussion about recreating a 19th century or turn of the century diet?
          I think a turn of the century diet is a good place to start but you also have to take into consideration that diseases of civilization were present long before then. There is also compelling evidence by comparing the dental health and skeletal structures of hunter gatherers vs farmers to indicate that a grain based diet isn't optimal. I mean if an archaeologist can look at bones and tell which one ate which diet I'm going to eat the diet that resulted in healthier bones.

          If you're not Celiac then eating some grains here or there isn't going to kill you. You just have to ask yourself if this is the healthiest thing for me and if this food is taking up a spot on your plate for foods that are healthier. Depending on the person grains are at best empty carb calories while at worst they are little disease causing bombs of harmful proteins and anti-nutrients. You pick which type of person you are.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
            Because, as the Primal Blueprint explains, hunter-gatherers (if they didn't die of accidents) had a longer life span and were healthier than your grandparents. Your grandparents were part of an agricultural lifestyle (certainly much healthier than ours). When humans became agriculturalists their brains and bodies shrank. This can clearly be seen in the Massai of the 20th century who were not agriculturalists, were tall, lean, healthier and stronger than we are, and lived longer.
            My recent ancestors lived into their 90s in great numbers, prehistoric man lived longer than that??
            | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

            “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
              Because, as the Primal Blueprint explains, hunter-gatherers (if they didn't die of accidents) had a longer life span and were healthier than your grandparents. Your grandparents were part of an agricultural lifestyle (certainly much healthier than ours). When humans became agriculturalists their brains and bodies shrank. This can clearly be seen in the Massai of the 20th century who were not agriculturalists, were tall, lean, healthier and stronger than we are, and lived longer.
              Any data you read on hunter-gatherer ancestors is going to be inaccurate and skewed, especially involving their lifespans, so you can't say most of what is contained in this post with certainty.
              Make America Great Again

              Comment


              • #22
                People who equate finetuning their diet with stress have fundamentally flawed views of what stress actually means. How much you look into the science and debates concerning micronutrients is a matter of interest, nothing more, nothing less.

                If you get actual panic attacks because you read too much about cancer thats stress, if you just incorporate nutrient xy because of potential cancer prevention, thats all fine. If you get anxious if you see your friends grain containing foods thats stress, if you make the concious decision to not eat the crap everyone else is eating thats not a problem at all.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
                  Because, as the Primal Blueprint explains, hunter-gatherers (if they didn't die of accidents) had a longer life span and were healthier than your grandparents. Your grandparents were part of an agricultural lifestyle (certainly much healthier than ours). When humans became agriculturalists their brains and bodies shrank. This can clearly be seen in the Massai of the 20th century who were not agriculturalists, were tall, lean, healthier and stronger than we are, and lived longer.
                  The Massai also drink massive amounts of milk, certainly not paleo and only primal because it brings in more followers.

                  Can you show me any evidence that our paleo ancestors were healthy or free of disease? I have heard lots of conflicting information on this subject. Also the fact that agriculture exploded our population from thousands to millions and now billions. That speaks a lot. I also dont believe that we have shrunk both body and brain size, the sheer amount of available calories should mean that we were able to get bigger and we obviously got smarter. Neanderthals were bigger with bigger brains but they died out.

                  In fact, if you look at any true hunter gatherer tribe, they are usually tiny in stature, lean mostly but certainly not free of disease.
                  Last edited by Zach; 03-09-2013, 02:37 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    That wasn't my point, you missed it. I avoid crappy food that serves no point to me as well, and have fine tuned my diet. Read through all posts to see exactly how diet can cause stress. You're the one with a flawed view of stress if you don't think everything you do in your life can cause stress.

                    stress in response to life is a natural process, it's when you compound it unnecessarily is when it goes from adaptive to dysadaptive
                    Last edited by Derpamix; 03-09-2013, 02:40 PM.
                    Make America Great Again

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Zach View Post
                      The Massai also drink massive amounts of milk, certainly not paleo and only primal because it brings in more followers.

                      Can you show me any evidence that our paleo ancestors were healthy or free of disease? I have heard lots of conflicting information on this subject. Also the fact that agriculture exploded our population from thousands to millions and now billions. That speaks a lot. I also dont believe that we have shrunk both body and brain size, the sheer amount of available calories should mean that we were able to get bigger and we obviously got smarter. Neanderthals were bigger with bigger brains but they died out.
                      Child mortality was a huge problem even all the way up until the late 19th century
                      Make America Great Again

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The answer to what diet is dependant on what your actual question is?

                        If you are asking what is the most appropriate diet for Human beings, then there is no question that your baseline is a Paleolithic diet.

                        Exactly what that was though is based on anthropological evolutionary studies which are prone to observer bias, but in general one could safely assume that it was centred around meat (including insects), starchy tubers, fruit, larger nuts and some leafy greens as these foods are are obviously recognisable as foods without significant processing.

                        Where you take that with overlays of modern hunter gatherers, longevity studies, 19 century WAPF, or philisophical ideals is up to you and what your research reveals for you.

                        A word of caution though on neolithic and modern foods, just because agriculture brought us overpopulation doesn't mean the foods were healthier and if there is one thing that human dietary and medical history has shown us is that we know very little about the operation of the body and it's interaction with the environment.

                        So for me I lean towards 6-12 million years of natural selection as being more appropriate than 10 thousand years of the artificial environment created by human civilisation.
                        "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                          That wasn't my point, you missed it.
                          You realise that you need to actually have a point for me to be able to miss it right?

                          Since you dont have a stance except for "you have to control your diet but not too much" which is saying exactly nothing, why would one argue with it?
                          The whole purpose of this blog is to give people who dont care about doing their own research for hours on end a direction to live healther, it even gives context instead of strict rules. Its not like Mark is some retarded asshole like this 30bananas guy that tells everyone "if it doesnt work you are doing it wrong", but there has to be a target group and for the target group "fat sedentary american that hasnt looked into his diet for 20 years" your beloved carb curve is incredibly useful. Weightloss benefits of low-carb but still encouraging the use of low carb vegetables in large quantities.

                          If you or j3nn or whatever people here decided, that they need more carbs in their life to fuel whatever activities they are doing thats all fine and good. Above mentioned fat american doesnt need tons of carbs while slimming down, period.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Nekron View Post
                            You realise that you need to actually have a point for me to be able to miss it right?

                            Since you dont have a stance except for "you have to control your diet but not too much" which is saying exactly nothing, why would one argue with it?
                            The whole purpose of this blog is to give people who dont care about doing their own research for hours on end a direction to live healther, it even gives context instead of strict rules. Its not like Mark is some retarded asshole like this 30bananas guy that tells everyone "if it doesnt work you are doing it wrong", but there has to be a target group and for the target group "fat sedentary american that hasnt looked into his diet for 20 years" your beloved carb curve is incredibly useful. Weightloss benefits of low-carb but still encouraging the use of low carb vegetables in large quantities.

                            If you or j3nn or whatever people here decided, that they need more carbs in their life to fuel whatever activities they are doing thats all fine and good. Above mentioned fat american doesnt need tons of carbs while slimming down, period.
                            Ok, if you say so! (´・ω・`)
                            Make America Great Again

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              The thing about judging things like cravings, carb flu, digestive issues, etc. that are posted about on the forum is that you can't possibly know how many people didn't post because everything went smoothly. Companies know that when people are displeased with a product, they'll shout it to anyone who'll listen, but when pleased with a product, they really usually just respond when asked.

                              So, you'll rarely see threads like:

                              I don't have cravings!
                              I never got carb flu!
                              I didn't s*** my pants!

                              because those people are perfectly happy with the way it's all going, and don't need to post. I've made this point before in other threads, but I'll be happy to point it out whenever someone thinks that the complaints, issues, whatever people post about represent the entire group of people who have chosen to eat and live this way.

                              These forums don't necessarily represent the Primal community. They might more represent people who embrace the Primal philos0phy and who like online forums.
                              "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                              B*tch-lite

                              Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
                                These forums don't necessarily represent the Primal community. They might more represent people who ...... like online forums.
                                I think this is it actually ^

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X