Personally I like to think of what I eat as the modern hunter/gatherer diet: So here is a general analysis of what they eat in macro terms....
Whole Health Source: Composition of the Hunter-Gatherer Diet
" On average, the hunter-gatherer groups analyzed got about 70% of their calories from hunted foods. This makes the case that meat-heavy omnivory is our preferred ecological niche. However, it also shows that we can thrive on a plant-rich diet containing modest amounts of quality animal foods."
i dont know what are the direct sources of these "epidemiological evidence.. in almost all societies" and as far as i know you could be spamming like black timber over there (ur high post counts could be indicative that you are not)
1) though i realised that what's important here is that the world's nutritionists, the most leading and the most cutting edge, if they haven't figured this all out and recommended something to society at large, along with their studies and sources,
2) and if those that do epidemiology havent found ten or even a single widespread disease by eating 50% protein (omg! 20% above the maximum level that is historically "safe")
** then it's a good enough guess that you should go dancing and that i should go solve my straving probelm -- once and for all
and that link is to a palo blog that i've seen before from an academic (i think though that i rather just eat what is generally considered to be healthy, which is perfectly fine -- no need for these new and ongoing fabs)
Last edited by straving2death; 04-27-2013 at 04:34 PM.
Oh, so you were just trolling rather than actually looking for scientific thought.... got it. Why didn't you just say so
None of those back up your statement....all you've shown is that stress can cause a change in weight distribution and that dieting can be a stressor. What you need to find to back your stance is a low carb vs higher carb study where the calories, protein, and activity levels are constant showing that the low carb group has a proportionately statistically significant worse change in H/W ratio. If you can't find this study then you may have to redefine what you think you know about the biochemical draw backs of low carb dieting.
Originally Posted by Derpamix
That's the best study I've seen, but that link didn't show the tables.
Originally Posted by Neckhammer
See pg 689 of the link below for the macro tables (35/65 plant/animal to 65/35 plant/animal mixes). But his frequency tables on pg 684 seem to show most tribes were heavier on the animal side. You need to take into consideration how fat the animals are...and that gives you the appox macro nutrient breakdown.
In situations where they ate a lot of animal, but animals with low body fat, they got as much as 50% protein. With animals of high body fat it was 60% fat. Basically there is no one perfect human macro formula, lots of different diets that can work, as long as it's not 100% plant!!!
Originally Posted by neckhammer