Interesting...
 

that while girls are maturing earlier, it's seems to be harder than ever for them to get pregnant. Every female in my family, the generation after mine, has had problems getting pregnant. Five of them, ages 26-30. I never had a problem (!) nor do I remember anyone my age having problems. I became pregnant for the first time at 21. Maybe it is because they are waiting longer? One daughter of mine, age 20 has all sorts of problems with irregular periods, hormonal imbalances, yeast infections, etc. Unfortunately, because she could not drink milk, she had a lot of apple juice when she was little. I thought I was being a good mom. :( No sugary drinks, just pure apple juice. Now I sort of kid her about that study that shows that kids who had a lot of juice when young are shorter/smaller than others their age. She is 5'1" and the smallest person in our family. She has forgiven me. ;)

Geez, do we have any idea what we are doing to ourselves? Apparently not. Sure would be nice if the medical establishment would swallow their pride so we could get down to the serious business of finding this stuff out. Our lives depend on it.

Amy

Our lives depend on it....oh, well...
 

You're right, of course. Our lives do depend on it. But, if I can at least make myself healthier, then I have saved one person from the "SYSTEM." There is just too much money riding on and, circulating out there to stop the production of "lowfat" foods, and grain products and by-products, and dairy products and by-products, and preservatives, and processing, and chemical additives, and soy products, and whatever, etc., etc., ad-nauseum. When it is no longer economically feasible for the companies who make this crap, it will stop...probably not in our lifetimes. Most people would rather be told what to do, anyway. They look to the "experts" (medical doctors who have never taken a course in nutrition, TV actors, movie stars who know less about most things than my cat, and companies like ADL, Ralston-Purina, R.J. Reynolds, Frito-Lay, General Mills, Kellogg Co., etc.) who have a special stake in keeping certain money-making products on the market, to tell them what to buy. People have not only given up their civil rights, they are also giving up their rights to life by eating "food" that is just plain bad for them. But, most people are going to do what they are going to do even if they know it's bad for them, no matter what...otherwise, the big tobacco companies would be out of business...and so would the alcohol-producing mega companies. As for me, I'll just continue to eat my fish, chicken, pork, beef, and ocassional lamb, along with veggies, seeds, nuts, plenty of purified water, fruit and berries...and see if I can somehow survive another thirty years to hike, and climb in my beloved Sierras and Cascades. If that works for me, the rest of the world will have to see to the rest, themselves. Sad. Even my own wife will not believe that my WOE is the best way to go. She sees the weight loss, and thinks I'm a zealot (I am, of course). She wanted me to lose the weight, but is not real happy with what I've become since losing almost 80 pounds. I am happier. I spend too much time exercising for her tastes. My body has obtained muscles I wasn't even aware I had. I used to like to talk about my diet to anyone who would listen so that I could help them in their health. MISTAKE! I actually think she eats some of the things that she eats just to spite me. She says things like, "But there are people who live to be 100 who eat grains all their lives." I retort with, "Yes, and there are people who smoke like chiminies all their lives and live a long time, too. But, aparently you are willing to take the gamble and hope to be in the minority of survivors." Well, I don't make points and she shudders every time I try to make a comment about my diet, or about people eating the wrong foods. So, I just keep my mouth shut around her, and around the people I work with, and everybody else. They don't want to hear it. Thank Goodness for this forum!

I hear what you are saying...
 

Fortunately, my hubby just wants me to feel better. I struggled for a long time, eating that junk (whole grain wheat). Not too many other people want to hear it. The resistance is amazing.

I am always a little ashamed to say I'm from Battle Creek, Mi, home of Kelloggs, Post, Ralston...Cereal Capital of the World. Yee-ha :( It's too bad, because even though William & John Kellogg were a little nutz, they were interested in bringing health to people. Currently, Kellogg's is interested in the almighty dollar, of course, nothing else. And you're right about it not changing in our lifetime. Can you imagine what would happen to our economy if the truth was shouted from the rooftops? yikes...

This is very interesting to me. I can't afford the books and they aren't in the library. So I am getting some info on the Neanderthin diet free. Thx.

My question is ---what info re HONEY.

A friend of mine got into beekeeping 2 yrs ago and I started into honey as a delicacy. I enjoyed it on wholegrain bread and toast for lunch, and dribbled a spoonful every am on my whole wheat cereal with milk for brekky even. Now I have cut the bread and cereal and milk, but I love honey. Is it addictive? Why did it fix my haemeroids? My innerards, and exitards have never been better. I feel like I am 25 again.


What does Neanderthal/Paleo think re honey?
Sidebar: talking paleo and archeology, I can't get enough info on that submerged ol fresh water landscape under the shallow end of the Caspian or Aral Sea. Wonderful stuff.

Nothin wrong with honey...unless...
 

Honey, in moderation, is a paleolithic food. Our ancestors gorged on honey, when they could find it. However, if you're trying to lose weight, or attempting to stay within certain boundaries, stay away from the gooey, sweet stuff. It is fructose based, so it doesn't spike your blood sugar like conventional sugars, but it is still death to a diet! It also contains trace elements that refined sugars don't contain. Everyti\hing in moderation is a good policy even when not trying to lose weight. Another thing...if it definetely makes you feel better, then go for it! I imagine that one could get addicted to it...people can get addicted to just about anything...even turning doorknobs can become an addiction. Remember, above all, honey is almost pure sugar...even if it is mostly fructose...we can get fat on sugar...it still can mess up a fat-burning metabolism, so it should be counted as a carbohydrate...just like all the others.

Hi everyone, I was pleased to see lots of people interested in this stuff, so here are...

Some more scattered thoughts (as promised) on hunters and gatherers vs. agriculturists, from an archaeologist's perspective :) :

Agriculture is NOT a natural evolution from hunting and gathering. It is not an inevitable event.

Hunter/gatherer societies are generally more egalitarian, with less social hierarchy; resources are communal and there is less/no desire for material acquisition. Leaders are chosen meritocratically rather than aristocratically, plutocratically, or democratically.

Despite what many people think, hunter/gatherer societies created art as early as 50,000 BP. Burials which we have found dating to this time are an indication of spirituality and a belief in or concept in the afterlife of some variety. This idea that the human being has a non-material component (what we call the soul) was probably developed at this time (the precursor of religion).

One more interesting art fact: those figurines that were so often buried with the dead by H/G and early agric. societies have often been called "fertility figurines/idols" because of their voluptuous female form. The likelihood is that they were not considered "voluptuous" until recently (last 2 thousand years). This is something to consider when we think about our own body image. The female form that we consider voluptuous and denoting fertility was the normal depiction of a non-pregnant female for most of human history. Archaeologists are just starting to overcome this 20th century bias.

One drawbacks of agriculture that can be seen from any archaeological site is sedentism (the desire to stay in one place) is the natural result of agriculture. People no longer are willing to walk long distances. This leads to an intensified use of land. Agriculture grows and hunting/gathering diminish with the increase of sedentism in a society.

Agriculture, which is basically the domestication of plants (so they don't breed with weeds) and animals (so they don't breed with vicious animals) everywhere the DOG is the first animal domesticated. Not as food, but as protection. So the first use of animal agriculture (the domestication of the jackal [and in some areas the wolf]) was NOT for the diet but for the protection of barking as a warning of intruders. Also, dogs are omnivorous and so help with sanitation, which is a huge problem in sedentary societies. It was much later that dogs began to be used for hunting. They are almost never used as meat.

So, WHY did we become agriculturalists?
In 10,000 BCE, the climate began to warm up, which affected food supply. Large animals which had evolved to cooler climates moved north to maintain their environment. That left smaller, more adaptable animals.
From a sociological perspective, some chiefs may have wanted to mark their status by material acquisition and the building of permanent structures, which led to sedentism.

Agricultural societies do not entirely abandon hunting/gathering, but it becomes subsidiary.

Overall results of agriculture:
--sedentism
--social hierarchy becomes more pronounced
--centralization of population
--larger population, even exponentially, needed more workers which led to the development of ethical problems with abortion, exposure, and euthanasia ==> larger population
--trade develops for the first time as groups become less self-sufficient
--permanent architecture develops, usually mud brick first and wood
--pyrotechnology develops (manipulation of chemical changes) like clay + heat = pot.
--pottery appears (storage vessels were not previously necessary)--most important archaeological artifact available.

not to mention affects on health, longevity, sanitation, etc. The one undeniable advantage of agriculture is that agricultural societies produce exponentially more art, literature, and "cultural" product. This is probably a result of the fact that agricultural populations can afford to engage in division of labor, which is much more limited in H/G populations.

Okay, class dismissed!!
Best, Kypraia

Great post!
 

Kypraia,

I love it when you drop in here! Have you read The Clan of the Cave Bear series? I'm re-reading them now, before I get the new one from the library. I'd heard the author did a LOT of research to make the books as authentic as possible. I love all the detail, and from what I've gathered, they are pretty accurate. I kind of chuckled last night at a part where they killed an animal and took only the fattiest/choicest cuts, leaving the rest for the scavengers. Lean meat, indeed!

Thanks again for your input.


Captxray,

I was curious about the honey/blood sugar connection. As soon as I buy some more testing strips, I'm going to try it. Hard to believe it wouldn't affect us the same as sugar. I may be different, though, as aspartame will give me an increase in blood sugar. Haven't tested Splenda, ran out of strips. They are kind of expensive to just use for curiosity's sake!

Amy

Hard time believing...
 

Hi Kypraia! Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that H/G women ever looked like those "Fertility Figures." I don't see how they could waddle from camp to camp and keep up with the group...unless the rest of them were as big as a barn (which hadn't been invented yet) and waddled, too! The animals they hunted to extinction must have been dumb, slow, lumbering fatsos, also. Maybe that's why they no longer exist(?). Now, I know that tree sloths were not that fast, and maybe mammoths were a little sluggish (although from the way elephants can get around, I find that hard to believe, too), but how in the heck did they keep from being the staple diet of large cats, or wolves, or cave bears? Somehow, the wrong animals became extinct! It seems inconcievable to me that a 300-400 pound human could exist on their diet, or hunt their food. Now, the gathering part wouldn't have been so difficult, but how does one sustain that much weight eating berries, fruit, roots, leaves and a few nuts? But, then, again, maybe the folks didn't eat the diet we think they did(?). When was pizza invented, anyway? I don't see how anyone, unless they had a metabolic imbalance, could eat low carb, high fat, high protein, be fairly active, and still have those bodily dimensions. Unless, of course, women were carried around in litters by very strong, virile men. What happened to the division of labor we must have had then?

Watch out for the strips!!!!!
 

JaneyDi!!!
I caution you about the strips. They are an evil invention of the "blood sugar" crowd! Well, maybe not, but they certainly don't work for me. I still lose the weight eating what I'm supposed to eat. I got caught up in the use of those evil little things and quite depressed when I couldn't turn them to even a slight tint of any other color than what they were when they came out of the bottle. So, I gave up on them and still lost the weight. If they work for you, good luck. But, don't be misled into thinking they are a way to tell if your body likes something, or not. Honey is pretty much the same thing as any other sugar, except it doesn't spike our blood sugars as much , which causes our pancreas to work overtime injecting insulin into our blood stream, which takes us into a "low blood sugar" depressed state and a craving for more of the "sugar high," which by this time, doesn't happen and all we get is fat, sluggish, and depressed.

Another thing...sugar substitutes fool us into thinking we are having sugar...the stuff fools our system, too. So, "Mr. Pancreas", trying to do a good job, injects the insulin, and away we go....!! If you are truly serious about eating "paleo," you will stay away from sugar substitutes of all kinds, and eat only naturally sweet fruits...in moderation. Remember, H/G groups don't eat a lot of fruit, nuts, veggies, or berries in the Winter. We should eat according to the season, as much as possible, too. Our metabolic system changes in the winter...more so, for those of us whose ancestors were most-likely living on the edges of the continental glaciers of the Pleistocene Epoch. As the sun drops lower in the sky in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, our metabolism adjusts to the seasonal change just like the trees, who drop their leaves. Hence, Seasonal Affective Disorder for many folks. We tend to put on and hold weight during the winter months...so, it's harder to lose weight during this half of the year. Eating sugar and carbs just compounds that problem.

Sorry for the confusion. The figurines I'm referring too have wide hips but are not obese. They are found in burials in predominantly agricultural societies in the village farming stage (i.e., not yet large central structures). They depict women who were involved in agricultural activities who were doing less and less hunting and gathering. Hunting/gathering societies did not produce these figurines. I think the confusion stems from my poorly worded statement about "H/G and early agricultural societies" by which I mean societies that were involved in agriculture but still hunted and gathered on a smaller scale. I apologize for the poor wording, I wrote that post rather quickly.

I will not contest your other point; the animals were probably dumb, possibly lumbering, and probably quite high in fat. Keep in mind that the H/G bands were small and moved around a lot, thus preventing the large mammals from being hunted out. As for "the wrong animals became extinct" I don't know which animals you're referring to; they did not become extinct, they merely moved north to cooler areas.

As far as the body weight, they would not have weighed 300-400 pounds. I can't say what they would have weighed; there certainly would have been a variety of body weights, although obesity would have been far less common than it is today. Do not imagine that H/G bands went everywhere at a fast run. The hunters (men only) ran at times during the hunt. The women were (probably) not involved in hunting live game. As for migratory movements, it would have been at a slow walk.

As for their diet, we are very confident that we have a good idea what they ate. As for litters, people who were unable to carry themselves would have been abandoned. Evidence suggests that very elderly people, sick people etc. were left to fend for themselves. As for division of labor, H/G division of labor was generally along gender and age lines, and it did exist, although less markedly than in fully agricultural societies.

I hope this clears up some of the confusion.
Best, Kypraia

thanks for clearing that up...
 

Hi kypraia!

I must admit that I was being a little absurd and trying to be a little humorous. I think my "humor" was only in my mind. However, a lot of the animals that early Man feasted on DID become extinct...Ground Sloths, Wooly Mammoths, Mastodons, the giant Bison of the Plains...to name a few. Also, the large cats of the "Saber Tooth" variety, Dire Wolves, Giant Cave Bears. When I said the "wrong animals became extinct," I was attempting to make funny by indicating that if people were so huge as to be lumbering beasts, it's surprising that the large cats, huge wolves, and cave bears became extnct with such a ready supply of "human" food available.

I agree with you about the exercise habits of H/G groups, but from some of the figurines I've seen, a woman of about 5'5" would have to weigh in at around 300 pounds to look like that. Of course, they were accenting her hips and breasts and exaggerating her overall dimensions for some reason, if not for "fertility symbolism." For all we know, these figurines could have been a representation of "Mother Earth," and her ability to provide for them.

Sorry for my poor attempt at humor.

Oh, I know :) I got the humor and appreciated it :) but sometimes that darn "lecture mode" kicks in and I can't help it....

I think talking about those figurines is especially hard without referring to exactly what kinds we have in mind. The ones I've dealt with most (and so were in my mind) are Cycladic figurines, which are probably the most famous. Of course they look different everywhere. The figurines I've studied most tend to look as if certain "feminine" features are exaggerated. I think my point about this (so inarticulately expressed) was this:

The women were probably shaped the way we imagine them (lean and fit) but they still had round hips, breasts, heavier thighs than men did, and THIS is the point: those aspects (heavy hips, breasts, and thighs) were ACCENTUATED by the artists of the period, rather than hidden like they do now. I was making a point about prehistoric BODY IMAGE not prehistoric BODY SHAPE. These features were exaggerated for some reason (we don't know why) but clearly these features were considered positive rather than negative. Something for us modern women to consider. So hopefully that was better expressed. I seem to have a hard time making my points clear :daze: . It's not the reader's fault, it's my inability to put my thoughts into words.

As for the extinct animals, I know so little about that that I don't want to say anything dumb...just that those animals that became extinct did so AFTER going north. Therefore whatever the reason, it was probably not because of H/G's in any way. Some extinct species are merely considered "extinct" because they evolved so drastically that their descendants don't look like them at all. For example, the ancient "horse" is considered extinct, although we wouldn't have modern horses if they had become completely extinct; their evolutionary history lives on in their descendants. I don't know what happened with the mammoths (I am not ashamed to say I'm pretty ignorant about this topic).

Do you think saber tooth tigers and such ate humans? I've wondered about that. They probably had no qualms about killing them if in danger, but does the human body provide a good food source? I'm not sure about this at all. That would be pretty scary. As far as I know, humans have never been the preferred food source for ANY predator (except microscopic organisms and worms, which are more parasitic than predatory).

One other thing: it's pretty hard to become extinct. Really. In the modern world it's easier (thanks to humans) but it takes a major catastrophe in most cases.

Best, Kypraia

Yep! they were food!!!
 

I know of at least two fossils (from my early days with paleoanthropology) where there are marks from the "saber tooth" of the large cats...one is in the skull of a fossil found in Brintain, I believe. Tigers prey on humans in India and further east, even today. Humans are evedently quite tastey to some of the large cats. If we happen to cross the path of a hungry predator who is bigger than we are, he (or she) doesn't make the distinction of whether or not we are "human" or not. We are automatically thought of as "food." Sharks seem to be quite fond of humans when silly humans decide to swim in their infested waters...unless, of course we have been eating a diet rich in carbohydrates and other "modern" foodstuffs (ie., grains, milk products, legumes, nightshades)...YUK! Only kidding!

It's pretty much an accepted fact (which really means, it's still a 'theory') that MAN, along with his protector-turned hunting partner, the wolf/jackal-who-turned-to-dog, really assisted in the extinction of many of the large vegetarian mammals. They could adapt to warmer climes...even, possibly, to different types of plant sources, but when Man and Wolf teamed up to hunt together, the large game animals "suddenly" disappeared and agriculture was well on its way to becoming the "WAY" for MAN to get his/her sustenance...and well on the way to a shortened life-span, disease and the poor health that plagues our kind, today.

Huh?
 

Captxray,

Are you talking about Ketostix? I don't use them. I was testing my blood sugar (with a monitor and actual blood :) ) to see what foods would cause spikes, so I could avoid them. I had heard that Splenda doesn't affect blood sugar, but I know that aspartame does, on me anyway. I want to check honey now for those times when I want something sweet. I always thought it would be WORSE than sugar as it tastes so much sweeter to me. My desire for sweet things diminishes the longer I follow this WOE. I'm not following Paleo, really, as I'm not ready to give up my yogurt. Not convinced it's necessarily bad for health. After all, the Hunza's ate plenty of it. (Although it was raw.) Who's to say anyway, that early H/G didn't think the milk supply of a nursing animal wasn't a special treat? I realize they didn't 'milk' them, but that doesn't mean they never drank milk. ? We'll never know.

Amy

That's what I was talking about....
 

I was talking about ketostix...evil...evil...evil...Good that you are using your actual blood...

I have found since going on this WOE about 15 months ago, I have absolutely NO desire for "sweets" other than fruit...and sometimes, I just can't get enough of the stuff...which doesn't really help my weight loss, but sure satisfies my cravings...the only cravings I ever have, anymore. My wife is baking and making cookies for our daughters and family for the season, and the only ones that even slightly tempt me, because they were my favorites in my past life, are the sugary, lemon-butter cookies that she makes in a large pan and flattens them out and cuts them out in squares...but, I know if I tried one, it would be so sweet, my teeth would curl up and I'd want to die. A while back---actually about 10 months ago---I thought I would try Mexican food...I practically grew up on the stuff as a kid, having a grandfather born in Mexico and my first wife being Mexican, and living in Southern California while in my youth...well...BIG MISTAKE! I was sick to my stomach for three days...RUMBLE... TUMBLE...I've learned that since going completely Paleo, I can no longer eat the foods I used to eat...they make me deathly ill. That's a pretty good incentive to staying on the WOE!!! There are lots of problems with adults eating milk products unless you are getting the milk from your own animals...like the HUNZA, who let their cows run free and eat grass like ruminants are supposed to do, and didn't stuff them full of grains. All adults are lactos intollerant, but some just seem more so, than others. You might not even be aware of the intolerances you have. They could manifest themselves in other more insideous ways, like in the forms of autoimmune disorders such as Diabetes, Lupus, MS, arthritis, Rheumatoid arthritis, obesity...to name a few...you might get sleepy after eating milk by products, etc. and not even be aware that this is the reason for your lethargy, or you have an ache in the back, or neck, or???. Even human children are not designed for cows milk...only little cows are designed to eat that stuff...their dietetic demands are much different than ours...remember, they eat grass most of the time when they grow up. But, we humans are OMNIVORES. That means that our systems are designed to get nutrients out of a variety of food sources...so I would imagine our ancestors made something out of the milk in a lactating mother animal that they killed...waste not, want not! What I am sure of, though, is that our ancestors didn't make a regular thing out of it until after the advent of agriculture. "ALL THINGS IN MODERATION"