Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Wired.com Article - Revised Paleo Diet page

  1. #1
    CuriousGuy's Avatar
    CuriousGuy is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1

    Wired.com Article - Revised Paleo Diet

    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...eolithic-diet/

    Thoughts? Comments? Implications?

  2. #2
    iniQuity's Avatar
    iniQuity is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern NJ
    Posts
    5,683
    I'm not sure if this is providing hard-hitting evidence that grains were in fact eaten. Assuming it does, it still doesn't change the fact that grains are by and large unhealthy but can, if one chooses, be consumed in moderation. I would say, if Paleo man was using some grains, it probably still didn't make up the bulk of their diet.

  3. #3
    doghead's Avatar
    doghead is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    174
    Meh. Could be true, could not.

    Doesn't matter much to me, all I know is how I eat now makes me feel and look the best I ever have, so I am sticking to it.
    - If it was cute and cuddly at some point, eat it. Ignore everything else. -

    - Food is first, and foremost, nothing more than fuel. -

    - The body is animal. The mind, however, is not. -

  4. #4
    lcme's Avatar
    lcme is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    444
    "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." This whole article has a "grains are good" slant right from the start, implying that a diet without grains is clearly unbalanced.

    I wouldn't argue that this mortar and pestle may have been used to process grain-like materials, but the article makes far reaching suggestions that this one mortar and pestle means that all paleolithic humans ate similar things. The one thing that we see in modern hunter-gatherer societies is the variance in their diets, and adaption based on the local environment.

  5. #5
    kennelmom's Avatar
    kennelmom is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Upstate of SC
    Posts
    1,328
    ferns and cattails are considered grains? or grain-like? I thought ferns were those frondy things that grow in the shade and cattails were those caterpillar looking doo-dads that grow near water.
    Heather and the hounds - Make a Fast Friend, Adopt a Greyhound!

  6. #6
    leonardotmnt's Avatar
    leonardotmnt is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    141
    I don't know if this is the same info that came out a couple months ago but I want to say Mark had a post about it if so. Also, if it is what I saw previously some people talked about them grinding up grains to make a paint-like substance or something like that. I believe Mark said that even if they had eaten some grains they certainly didn't make them the mainstay in their diet.

    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/stone-age-grains/
    Last edited by leonardotmnt; 10-18-2010 at 01:47 PM. Reason: Added link

  7. #7
    lcme's Avatar
    lcme is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by kennelmom View Post
    ferns and cattails are considered grains? or grain-like? I thought ferns were those frondy things that grow in the shade and cattails were those caterpillar looking doo-dads that grow near water.
    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.

    The whole article was very over-reaching and right from the start you could see that they were trying to force an endpoint of "grains are paleolithic too".

  8. #8
    Mirrorball's Avatar
    Mirrorball is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    434
    I think they mean grain as a small piece of something. Grains of starchy plants. This other article about the same discovery claims they were eating ROOTS, as in sweet potatoes, not grains, as in wheat.
    Height: 5'4" (1.62 m)
    Starting weight (09/2009): 200 lb (90.6 kg)
    No longer overweight (08/2010): 145 lb (65.6 kg)
    Current weight (01/2012): 127 lb (57.5 kg)

  9. #9
    lcme's Avatar
    lcme is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    B.C.
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirrorball View Post
    I think they mean grain as a small piece of something. Grains of starchy plants.
    Which is totally stupid, because they clearly try to make the extension to the modern grains.

    Breaking news: Mummified human found with grains of sand embedded in teeth. More evidence that a balanced diet containing grains was consumed by ancestors.

  10. #10
    Mirrorball's Avatar
    Mirrorball is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    434
    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.
    lol!
    Height: 5'4" (1.62 m)
    Starting weight (09/2009): 200 lb (90.6 kg)
    No longer overweight (08/2010): 145 lb (65.6 kg)
    Current weight (01/2012): 127 lb (57.5 kg)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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