There's one thing I wonder about when people say "Paleolithic people were mostly plant eaters with only very small amounts of meat"; have these people ever done the math? It just doesn't seem mathematically possible. What am I missing?
Have any of you ever eaten all the green/red vegetables you are able in a day and logged exactly how many grams of carbs you are getting? I have, and never made it much past 100g without cheating and incorporating a sweet potato or fruit. I suppose on a bet I could maybe hit 150g, but frankly at that point one's jaw gives out. It's truly exhausting.
And after consuming those 150g of carbs from lettuce, cucumber, broccoli, carrots and celery you only get 600 calories (minus all that energy you spent eating and digesting them!). It's enough to sustain yourself, until the next kill. But to thrive on vegi alone you would need to eat way more.
Some anthropologists say paleo man may have eaten 3000+ calories. Yet there are people who keep saying it was plant based? You would have to eat 750g of vegetable based carbs in order to sustain yourself!!! Have any of you ever actually achieved that? I would like to know.
My question is simple; do these numbers make sense? Is it even humanly possible?
Green and red vegetables? Sweet potato cheating?
They ate anything edible they could find. That probably included lots of roots and tubers. Green vegetables would have been available mostly in the spring and they probably ate lots during that period. Don't most of us hunger for salads in the spring? Fruit would have been seasonal. But, anyway, they didn't eat very small amounts of meat. However, lots of the "meat" they ate may have been stuff like bugs.
Ancestral Health Info - My main blog about Primal and the general ancestral health movement for people who want to take a flexible approach.
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. Native Australians used to eat well over 500 different plant foods, many which are extremely differnet macro and vitamin/mineral content of anything you'll find in stores.
I watched a presentation about how paleo man may have gotten up to 35% of their cals from fished foods, that makes more sense to me than anything else. 35% fished,35% gathered, 30% hunted. I know for a fact that's how most of my native American ancestors lived and thrived.
"Vegetables" are notably underrepresented. The most commonly eaten plant foods are fruit, underground storage organs (tubers, roots, corms, bulbs), nuts and other seeds. Leaves and other low-calorie plant parts were used much less frequently."
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.
It also depended on where people lived. People in higher latitudes (closer to the poles) had less access to plant foods, and meat would have made up a larger portion of their diet. People living at lower latitudes (closer to the tropics) would have more access to plant foods, and their diet would adjust accordingly.
SW (1/4/12): 326 lbs. (48% BF)
Steak and Eggs SW (5/11/13): 198 lbs.
CW (6/2/13): 185.4 lbs. (??% BF)
GW: 185 lbs. (~15% BF)
0.4 lbs. to go, ??% BF to go
Just logging in to congratulate Skorpion317 on his(?) amazing weight loss in his sig. Way to go!
5'0" female, 42 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Current weight: 109 lbs because of travel.
MY PRIMAL: I (try to) follow by-the-book primal as advocated by Mark Sisson, except for whey powder and a bit of cream. I aim for 80-90 g carb/day and advocate a two-month strict adjustment for newbies. But everybody is different and other need to tweak Primal to their own needs.