Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Wired.com Article - Revised Paleo Diet page 2

  1. #11
    tfarny's Avatar
    tfarny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,478
    I love archaeology. You can critique the newspaper reporting of any subject you actually know about, not only paleo. Makes you think about all the stuff you read on subjects you don't have much background in.

  2. #12
    bUMbLeB's Avatar
    bUMbLeB is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by lcme View Post
    My understanding is that grains are essentially the edible portion of the seeds of grasses. I don't know if cattails are grasses or not. I certainly don't think that ferns are grasses.
    Cattails are grasses AFAIK, but their roots aren't "grains". Ferns are plants that reproduce via spores. Also not grains. And even if waybacks were eating some "grains" (ie grass seeds, I don't disbelieve it) they weren't making pizza, pasta and sammiches the staple of their diet.

    Quote Originally Posted by lcme View Post
    Breaking news: Mummified human found with grains of sand embedded in teeth. More evidence that a balanced diet containing grains was consumed by ancestors.
    There's a grain of truth in what you say. I took it with a grain of salt. I'm chalking it up to my 20%.

  3. #13
    JeffC's Avatar
    JeffC is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    VA USA
    Posts
    499
    It's strange that Yahoo has a different synopsis of the exact same study (by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) but says something quite different which in my mind is completely consistent with what we conceive of as Paleo nutrition. Here is how the Yahoo study described the findings:

    "The findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) journal on Monday, indicate that Palaeolithic Europeans ground down plant roots similar to potatoes to make flour, which was later whisked into dough."

    This is plant roots and tubers, it is not grains. Guess it just goes to show you have to read the original source and cannot rely on others to characterize it for you, here is a link to the yahoo article.

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

  4. #14
    lcme's Avatar
    lcme is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    444
    After a few re-reads of the article I realize that it never meant grains in the neolithic sense. I guess I was just thrown off by the statement that they made in the first sentence.

  5. #15
    Bushrat's Avatar
    Bushrat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,685
    Quote Originally Posted by lcme View Post
    After a few re-reads of the article I realize that it never meant grains in the neolithic sense. I guess I was just thrown off by the statement that they made in the first sentence.
    An editor recently told me that titles only have to catch the readers eye. They don't have to say what the article is about. The reader has to read the article to find that out. The article was probably just wrote that way to get maximum attention.

  6. #16
    Morff's Avatar
    Morff is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7
    Agriculture as we know it had to evolve over time. Man didn't just grab a rake and hoe one day and start planting rows of wheat and corn. The idea for using grains to create edible food had to start from one small idea, probably out of necessity. After having success in creating something edible to fill his stomach the idea of replicating it had to happen. The fact that a mortar and pestle was found in a cave doesn’t mean they sat around eating toast and jam all day. What it means is man found a new way to survive in less than ideal situations. What was probably a necessary evil to see these tribes or families through tough times should not be a staple of our diet. Look at the chronic health problems that have been observed since the wide spread use of agriculture.

    If you pay attention to this article it has a very anti low carb anti Atkins anti Primal anti paleo diet sentiment in it right from the first sentence. Notice that he tells you how "Humanity’s Stone Age ancestors, long thought to have practiced a prehistoric version of the Atkins diet, may have eaten a balanced diet after all.” I can't help but feel that the author of the article had an agenda to fill and it wasn't to present the facts about an archeological find. He wanted to defend his cake and eat it too

  7. #17
    Hedonist's Avatar
    Hedonist is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sacramento, California
    Posts
    2,927
    There is some evidence that humans have eaten a bit of grain for 100,000 years. Any evidence about that is hard to find. But Paleo is the optimal diet not the only one that we can do OK on. There is no reason to think Grok ate enough grain to make any difference. We are designed to eat the plants that are part of primal, meat and whatever we have to eat to survive when the first two are scarce.
    Ancestral Health Info

    I design websites and blogs for a living. If you would like a blog or website designed by someone who understands Primal, see my web page.

    Primal Blueprint Explorer My blog for people who are not into the Grok thing. Since starting the blog, I have moved close to being Archevore instead of Primal. But Mark's Daily Apple is still the best source of information about living an ancestral lifestyle.

  8. #18
    tfarny's Avatar
    tfarny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,478
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Agriculture almost certainly started by accident and gradually over millenia, as people and their dogs disposed of seeds near campsites; when they returned to a campsite in the right season, they'd find lots of fruits & veggies had grown up there, allowing them to stay longer / helping them through a lean time, reducing their nomadic movement a bit. The site becomes a "must visit" because of all the nice composted soil and eventually they start to scatter their seeds on purpose before leaving to the next camping site. Repeat gradually for a few eons or so as the big game gets hunted to extinction, and voila you have agriculture. Agriculture appears always, shortly after the disappearance of the biggest local game animals in that area.
    Read Jared Diamond (any book).

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •