[QUOTE=oxide;1138989]Just logging in to congratulate Skorpion317 on his(?) amazing weight loss in his sig. Way to go! :cool:[/QUOTE]
Thanks! I was down to 193 lbs. in Oct. 2012, then laziness and a badly sprained toe caused me go back up to 245 lbs. I started working my way back down in the beginning of February.
[QUOTE=skorpion317;1139220]Thanks! I was down to 193 lbs. in Oct. 2012, then laziness and a badly sprained toe caused me go back up to 245 lbs. I started working my way back down in the beginning of February.[/QUOTE]
Wow, that's tough.
[QUOTE=Zach;1138876]The last three hit it on the head. Paleo man was not eating big ass salads filled with arugala and bell peppers. Most likely their diets mainly consisted of fruit, shell fish and other sea food, insects and tubers/roots. And in some small game and larger prey once in awhile.[/QUOTE]
That makes sense. The only way the math works is including a bunch of fruit and tubers. And of course fruit is seasonal, which means you have to eat something else off-season. However getting 3000 calories from greens would be impossible.
Cordain Et Al was the largest hunter/gather study with 229 tribes studies. The average tribe was around 30% calories from plant foods. But there were two tribes (1%) who hit a whopping 76-85% from plant foods, I wonder what they were eating. 0% were 86-100% plant based.
[QUOTE=Forgotmylastusername;1138669]You're assuming the small selection of modern plant foods we have avaible to us in the supermarket today resemeble the plant foods available over 10000 years ago.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm not assuming that.
I'm just wondering what people who say "we were plant eaters" think it was we ate, that could support the calorie needs of big strong paleolithic-sized bodies. I wouldn't assume vegis were the same as today, in fact I would assume they were smaller and less calorically dense than what we have today...which makes me wonder all the more how it would be calorically possible to survive on such.
[QUOTE=eKatherine;1139232]Wow, that's tough.[/QUOTE]
Eh, it was my own fault. Lesson learned.
Totally off topic but have to congratulate skorpion317 on the weight loss in his/her signature page! That is amazing! Way to go!
[QUOTE=valmason01;1139927]Totally off topic but have to congratulate skorpion317 on the weight loss in his/her signature page! That is amazing! Way to go![/QUOTE]
Thanks! Keep up the good work!
The thread title should read "doing the arithmetic" - no? :cool:
[QUOTE=KimchiNinja;1138643]And after consuming those [U]150g[/U] of carbs from lettuce, cucumber, broccoli, carrots and celery you only get 600 calories (minus all that energy you spent eating and digesting them!). [B]It's enough to sustain yourself, until the next kill.[/B] But to thrive on vegi alone you would need to eat way more.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=KimchiNinja;1139293]I wouldn't assume vegis were the same as today, in fact I would assume they were smaller and less calorically dense than what we have today...which makes me wonder all the more how it would be calorically possible to survive on such.[/QUOTE]This is why I eat a primarily animal based diet. I (and my digestive system) have never felt better. I have a working theory that eating a lot of veggies sends the wrong chemical signals to your body, one that say hold on to every last gram of nutrition possible and store it because the hunting is not good. Eating animal protein along with ample amounts of animal fat lets the body know that the hunting is good and there is no need to hoard the resources.
Not only were Paleolithic veggies smaller and less calorically and nutritionally dense, they also had more defenses up in terms of anti-nutrients, and sharp spiky bits. They would not have been worth a self respecting Grok's time to collect unless the tribe was seriously hungry.
I agree with what was said about seafood above and would add that sea veggies might also have played a major role in coastal dwelling Groks' diets. Sea veggies such as kelp are not technically plants but rather algae that don't have such anti-nutrient defenses.
Also our bodies' non-negotiable need for iodine would support the idea that we spent a good bit of our evolutionary path in a coastal environment.
Yep, we followed coastlines for 90,000 some years. Most likely seafood and fruit were a big part of diet. Vegetation not so much.
Also salt! Removing all salt is a big mistake since if we lived close to the ocean for so long we would be consuming quite a bit of it.