Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: NEW STUDY - The Stone Age Food Pyramid Included Flour Made From Wild Grains page

  1. #1
    paulotorrao's Avatar
    paulotorrao is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Algarve, Portugal
    Posts
    6

    NEW STUDY - The Stone Age Food Pyramid Included Flour Made From Wild Grains


  2. #2
    Shrinking_Violet's Avatar
    Shrinking_Violet is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, though originally from Sheffield
    Posts
    803
    Yes, it's bollocks (and has been discussed here before). What 'wild grains' actually means is 'starch grains from starchy tubers' (e.g. potatoes, yams, etc) NOT 'grains' as in the seeds of certain types of edible grasses - but that wouldn't have had such a nice, sensationalist, ring to it, now would it...?
    La tristesse durera toujours...

  3. #3
    NutMeg's Avatar
    NutMeg is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    1,513
    There are multilple stopics about this. I think a few of them ar ein teh research section. There is much discussion in those threads

  4. #4
    Sam Cree's Avatar
    Sam Cree is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    427
    The American Heart Association acquired a time machine and went back to the paleolithic era and recommended the pyramid!

    In reality, they didn't have agriculture back then, they were hunter/gatherers, examples of which have existed right into the 20th century. They didn't follow a grain based pyramid until neolithic times, and thankfully neither do we.

  5. #5
    Lewis's Avatar
    Lewis is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,492
    Quote Originally Posted by paulotorrao View Post
    You want comments on what's said there? OK.

    First, there's the quote from Wired:

    The flour, likely suitable for making flatbread or cakes, didn’t just give stone age people some dinnertime variety. Because it could be stored in dried form, flour would have given them greater independence from environmental and seasonal circumstance.
    I think it possible that hunter-gatherers might have dried the flour they'd made as a hedge against hard times - "to [give] them greater independence from environmental and seasonal circumstance - but I don't think we can take that as read. Just because one could do that, doesn't mean people did. Show me something like, say, a storage pit, and I'd be more interested.

    Secondly, there's the comment from Bruce Hardy [described as a "paleoanthropologist" at Kenyon College]:

    “This is not isolated to a small group of people. It’s a regular part of subsistence for humans,” he says. After all, humans, ancient or modern, just aren’t equipped to live on a diet of meat alone. “If you get that much meat in your diet not balanced out with other nutrients, you get protein poisoning,”
    I'm quite surprised to read this. It's poor terminology anyway - some people use the word "meat" to mean "lean meat" but it actually means lean-and-fat. But there's the point, anyway. You get protein-poisoning if you eat too much lean meat, but you don't need to eat starchy plants. You can do as well, and in fact better, by eating fat. Physiologically, you need very little carbohydrate, but you do need some fat (and ideally more than is often currently recommended). There are essential fatty acids; there are no essential carbohydrates. Starchy plants could be a useful food source, but they're not necessary to prevent you from getting protein poisoning. That's quite simply false information from someone who doesn't know about the subject he's pronouncing on.

    This man is, apparently, a teacher at an institute of higher education. How can he not know this stuff? What does he think people were eating above the treeline in Canada in winter a hundred years ago? What does he think tribal people eat in Siberia to this day? Not plants.

    So there you go. The link you gave has a dubious and unprovable statement, and a provably false statement from someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

    The rest of it is fluff. This, from the poster herself:

    ... adding more proof that our forebears were eating the beginnings of a more balanced diet while still roving as hunter-gatherers.
    hardly warrants comment. What would be "unbalanced" about a diet you were functioning perfectly well on? It's meaningless.

    The find itself is interesting, however - but I think hardly unexpected. But it's not anything for pushers of high-carb diets to get over-excited about.

  6. #6
    paulotorrao's Avatar
    paulotorrao is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Algarve, Portugal
    Posts
    6
    thanks to all.. this "flash news article" just arrived today to portugal

  7. #7
    Lewis's Avatar
    Lewis is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,492
    Quote Originally Posted by paulotorrao View Post
    thanks to all.. this "flash news article" just arrived today to portugal
    Welcome.

    I should have referenced the comment about tribal people in Siberia. I was thinking of the Evenk (formerly known as the Tungus).

    From Survival France:

    Their food is almost exclusively of animal origin: reindeer meat and fish. Reindeer bone marrow is the favorite food of the Evenk, as well as reindeer liver and kidneys. At the end of the summer, they gather forest berries, the last to ripen being cranberries, which are frozen for the winter. They also make reindeer cheese provisions.
    http://danslapeaudunpapou.survivalfr...venk-angl.html

  8. #8
    Grumpycakes's Avatar
    Grumpycakes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    3,591
    ... adding more proof that our forebears were eating the beginnings of a more balanced diet while still roving as hunter-gatherers.
    Argh. Do you know how much that irritates me? The very notion that we weren't eating a "balanced" diet during the hundreds of thousands of years of our natural evolution implies that we were something of a semifunctional prototype of a species, each generation just barely beating starvation long enough to have kids. It really says something about how divorced we are from nature that we could even think of ourselves as being less than perfect in our natural habitat. It was the open wilderness that grew us, not some petri dish in a lab.

    edit: It may not warrant comment, but it gets comment from philosophical grumps like me

  9. #9
    theholla's Avatar
    theholla is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    philly
    Posts
    1,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Caveman View Post
    Argh. Do you know how much that irritates me? The very notion that we weren't eating a "balanced" diet during the hundreds of thousands of years of our natural evolution implies that we were something of a semifunctional prototype of a species, each generation just barely beating starvation long enough to have kids. It really says something about how divorced we are from nature that we could even think of ourselves as being less than perfect in our natural habitat. It was the open wilderness that grew us, not some petri dish in a lab.
    I see you are living up to your moniker

    And I couldn't agree more.
    The Primal Holla! Eating fat. Getting lean. Being awesome.

    You were sick, but now you're well, and there's work to do. - Kilgore Trout

  10. #10
    Lewis's Avatar
    Lewis is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,492
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Caveman View Post
    It really says something about how divorced we are from nature that we could even think of ourselves as being less than perfect in our natural habitat.
    That's a nice way of putting it.

    She may not have meant to imply that but that is exactly what she is implying - or that we'd function better in an artificial environment at any rate. Culturally, perhaps - but in our basic functioning, in our biological being? ... that is just so implausible. She's either saying something daft or, if she didn't actually mean it, not really thinking through what's she's saying at all.

    On the perfection thing - to be frank, I don't believe Nature does half-botch things. You do hear comments about creatures not needing to be perfectly tuned to their environments, but it seems to me it does pretty well on the whole. And when it comes to human potentiality - well, in our current condition we simply don't know what it is.

    When you read accounts of 19th-century tribesmen living in their traditional lifeways who could see bodies in the night sky that no city-dwelling man could see without a telescope! When you find out that Catlin travelling among the North American Indians saw 2 million of them and hardly a single one with curvature of the spine, deafness, or even a rotten tooth! When you read of an Australian Aborigine who got top-class cricketers to throw cricket balls at him - some he dodged, some he parried with a small shield - and he kept that up for half-an-hour. Human abilities, functioning, and grace are naturally stupendous.

    You get people say damn daft things like bipedalism only half-works, and they're going by average uncoordinated person around them and guessing on account of stuff like the number of people with bad backs, without knowing that in some societies they don't get back pain.

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
  •