Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 76

Thread: Why "primal" and not 19th century? page 7

  1. #61
    MikeAtTaree's Avatar
    MikeAtTaree is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Old Bar Beach, New South Wales AUS
    Posts
    80
    Primal Fuel
    With regards to the OP's question: As a 64 year old I actually knew people who were born in the 19th Century, including quite a few great grandparents, great aunts and uncles etc who were in their 90s and getting around just fine. Apart from my Grandad who had a bike accident and my Dad who died of leukemia I have never had to visit a family member in any hospital, honest.

    However our families were always working class but not poor. I grew up in the UK which was quite socially stratified and your health and diet depended very much on where you lived and where you worked, I expect the same was true in the USA.

    For example I'd expect the people crowded into tenements in lower Manhatten in the 1870s with no bathrooms had far different health outcomes to people in fairly prosperous Mid Western small towns. In the UK the average height of the Lancashire (a poor factory "satanic mills" area) regiment in the first World War was 5 ft in their stockinged feet. When Americans GIs flooded into England during the Second World War people used to marvel at the fact that most of them were six footers at least. However in the South East of England where there was more prosperity people were taller and healthier.

    So it's impossible to define a 19th Century Diet that would be of any practical use. Nonetheless I well remember the sort of diet that the OP is probably harking back to, because I grew up on it after the War - bacon, eggs, black pudding etc for breakfast, a cooked meal of meat and vegetables for Dinner ("dinner" was the meal served in the middle of the day) and a light meal for "Tea" which is now called Dinner in most of the English speaking world. This was often just a couple of pieces of toast, or some cake, or scrambled eggs, but a couple of times a week there would be "high tea" which would be a similar meal to the mid-day "dinner".
    Once a week someone would be sent out to the fish and chip shop for a big serve of cod and chips or haddock and chips, all fried in beef dripping. There wasn't a lot of fruit and vegetables as available today but when you did "snack" it was nearly always an apple or banana or orange.

    What there was NOT: vegetable oils, processed foods other than canned food, frozen desserts, pizza - rice was rarely eaten, and pasta was a strange thing that "Ities" ate.
    No fast foods other than Fish and Chip shops. No Maccas, no takeaway Indian, Chinese, Thai.
    No post mix litre cups of cola. Sodas came in little bottles.

    All school children ate in school canteens and factory workers ate in works canteens, to a proper sit down dinner.

    Then along came the 1960s and it all started to drift away. Oh dear.

  2. #62
    ombat's Avatar
    ombat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,507
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeAtTaree View Post
    What there was NOT: vegetable oils, processed foods other than canned food, frozen desserts, pizza - rice was rarely eaten, and pasta was a strange thing that "Ities" ate.
    No fast foods other than Fish and Chip shops. No Maccas, no takeaway Indian, Chinese, Thai.
    No post mix litre cups of cola. Sodas came in little bottles.
    This. Food is too readily available and in too large quantities. When fast food did become easily accessible, burgers were minuscule compared to their size now.
    Last edited by ombat; 03-10-2013 at 10:03 PM.

  3. #63
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    929
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDub View Post
    To a very meaningful extent, wheat and grains are what enabled our current civilization. While it is true they pose problems for some folks, the statement above is ludicrously hyperbolic.
    The civilisation argument is completely irrelevant in a nutritional discussion, the hall mark of civilisation was population, mass carbohydrate feeding was appropriate for that, you only need to live long enough to breed and breed on mass, lots of soldiers, lots of workers, who cares if they die at 50 from a variety of chronic diseases, there's plenty more coming in behind to fill your footsteps. Not much removed from the curreent SAD diet.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDub View Post
    No, sorry, that's not true.
    Just to repeat outside of trauma injury yes it is, they died of old age with cognitive abilities still intact, they weren't vegetables when they died.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zach View Post
    Seriously.
    Even more irrelevant, look before you leap.

    The Gluten story goes well beyond Gluten, Coeliac disease is being termed the tip of the iceberg, that is suggesting that 90% of the problems with Gluten and grains are only just now being recognised, you want to bury your head in a bucket of wheat, go for it, that's your choice, but be warned just because you get a warm fuzzy feeling after downing your pizza doesn't mean it is doing you good.
    Last edited by Omni; 03-11-2013 at 01:32 AM.

  4. #64
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Omni View Post
    Even more irrelevant, look before you leap.

    The Gluten story goes well beyond Gluten, Coeliac disease is being termed the tip of the iceberg, that is suggesting that 90% of the problems with Gluten and grains are only just now being recognised, you want to bury your head in a bucket of wheat, go for it, that's your choice, but be warned just because you get a warm fuzzy feeling after downing your pizza doesn't mean it is doing you good.
    oh_noes.gif

  5. #65
    RitaRose's Avatar
    RitaRose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Zach View Post
    This is the same argument for every food group that paleo excludes, but you can use that logic on any food group.
    So... that means it's not valid? I'm not seeing the logic there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zach View Post
    The stupidest thing about the gluten witch hunt is that its almost entirely hype. Yes more people are becoming "sensitive" or "intolerant" but reality is that almost all can eat it perfectly fine and have since childhood. The power of suggestion and marketing hype is powerful. And for those who actually have a real condition, maybe it was caused by gluten or maybe it was something else, unsaturated fat for example. Most will never know, they just go with the trendy thing and eliminate gluten while still consuming the unsaturated fat.

    Anyway eat bread, dont eat bread, i dont care. Just know that healthy, long lived people have been eating it for ten thousand years and people will continue to do so and be healthy despite what a few gurus and internet knowitalls will have you believe.
    But that's the point I was trying to make. Along with other foods, wheat is more glutenous and genetically different from bread 100 years ago. And yes, other foods are too. Vegetables don't have nearly as many minerals as they used to either.

    It's not about saying "Demon wheat is the source of all evil in the world!" It's about saying "I can make a better choice, even if it is another food that isn't as good as it used to be."
    My sorely neglected blog - http://ThatWriterBroad.com

  6. #66
    DeeDub's Avatar
    DeeDub is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by RitaRose View Post
    But that's the point I was trying to make. Along with other foods, wheat is more glutenous and genetically different from bread 100 years ago.
    Humans aren't genetically static, either.

  7. #67
    DeeDub's Avatar
    DeeDub is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by Omni View Post
    ...you want to bury your head in a bucket of wheat...
    I don't eat wheat.

    But you just go right on believing whatever it is you need to believe.

  8. #68
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,148
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDub View Post
    Humans aren't genetically static, either.
    Sweet! I'm counting on that 1/2 a generation adaptation to kick in any minute now!

  9. #69
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    4,868
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDub View Post
    Humans aren't genetically static, either.
    And how have you successfully willed yourself or your progeny to evolve lately?

  10. #70
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,904
    PrimalCon New York
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDub View Post
    Humans aren't genetically static, either.
    You're just being an argumentative troll here.

    Natural selection has been weakened to the point of inconsequence with regards to modern humans. There's no significant genetic change taking place at the species level, despite your misleading attempt to imply that there is.
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 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
  •