I was thinking about something the other day. I have read neanderthin, protein power life plan, atkins, life without bread and loren cordains paleo diet book.

What occured to me is that we have very little evidence of what they ate during paleolithic times anyway. Some clues lie in the temperatures and the enviroment during those times and other plaeo finds. This however is only guess work.

What if the plants have evolved with us...why not? What if these plants, grains and fruits actualy have a much greater beneficial effect than any negative ones. There is no doubt that low carb dieting induces great weight loss and improves certain aspects of health. But how do we know the long term effects of such a diet? very few paleo people lived long enough to give evidence and there exists no long term studies into such a diet...

You may say, the eskimos live this way and so do certain tribes in africa...The vast majority don't and in fact the longest living people do eat higher carb. I have a feeling that through all our low carb reasoning and searching for solutions we neglect the fact that beans, grains, tubers, fruit and veg contain lots of protective components. Perhaps, these outweigh any negative aspect.

Please read the following website and give me your opinions. I think that perhaps, an evolutionary view point is not the stance to take. That rather, modern scientific evidence and long term studies be the way forward...

http://www.naturalhub.com/index.htm...al%20Food%20Hub

The seeds section is particularry interesting...

Thanks to anyone who replies....

Very interesting thread! Definite food for thought (no pun intended). I majored in physical anthropology (only the BA level). I have not read the paleo diet, but I am familiar with the basic concepts.

It is my understanding that early homo sapiens were primarily scavengers and opportunists. While evidence for hunting is present, it is believed that most meat products were scavenged.
Early humans probably went for long periods without meat. When they found it, they stuffed themselves for days, as long as it lasted. Some even died from it, such as the populations in China that consumed toxic doses of liver, which may have been eaten raw. Many of the hunted animals were sick or disabled. I personally believe that the key here is variety. Early humans ate everything that was even remotely edible. They find evidence for this in corpolites (fossilized feces). Eggs, plants, bark, certain grasses, fruit in season, etc.

The point you bring up is a good one. Most ancient people lived until thirty if they were EXTREMELY lucky. 40 was considered very elderly. Infant mortality was over 50% in most populations and often higher. Worms and parasites were a severe problem as was malnutrition.

So, I am hesitant when we hold this up as the "way to eat". I do believe the pysical evidence is clear that our teeth and digestive systems evolved for opportunistic eating. After saying that, I do believe in the Atkins diet. I believe our modern foods, extremely processed, are making our population fatter and sicker by the day. I don't want to eat like our ancestors did. But I know that something is really wrong with fruity pebbles, cakes, and refined flour. I do believe we have a severe problem with insulin resistance in our society. I think it is gonna get worse. Great topic, Cindi.

I think evolutionary patterns and changes looked at as a cause-effect relationship / model are the longest term studies available.

But evolutionary comparisons are the easiest to manipulate, while controlled studies (short-term by comparison to evolutionary studies, but long term by comparision to one's life expectancy) are easier to understand and interpret.

Low-carbing, however, scores highest on both tracks.

And there are no long term studies to the opposite. Even the modern low-fat theory, is entirely based on a senate comittee based on lawyers, not on scientific studies. In addition, there are no records of vegan homo sapiens to study, and no long term studues on modern vegans.

One comment I want to add, is that we should not mix vegetables and fruits, with grains as they don't usually go together. Grain requires harvesting and farming, a very recent development.

In addition, fruits and vegetables, in a none industrial society, are not available year-round.

Thanks for pointing to that site to us, I bookmarked it, and like what I read so far.

Wa'il
P.S. I moved this from the War Zone, as it isn't controversial or "heated".

The low carb diet doesn't need any further study. It is proven over thousands of years as being healthy. Over many unknown centuries the Eskimos of the north lived very well with zero carbohydrates most of the year. Likewise, the American Indians of the plains lived mostly on a diet of pemmican which was dried buffalo meat mixed with fat. This combination was 70% fat on a calorie basis.

The 6000 year old remains of a woman recently found in England showed by a special bone test that her diet was basically all meat.

These people on average had a shorter life span because of the many risk factors mentioned above. However, many lived to very old age as can be seen in very early pictures of the plains Indians.

The hazard of eating a high carbohydrate diet is being proven before our eyes throughout all of the English speaking nations. In the same manner, the Egyptians mummies show similar problems with diabetes and heart disease as we do. They ate a very high carbohydrate diet of grains and fruits.

The Paleo peoples of northern latitudes had very little or no fruit, grains and nuts available for most of the year and then only in a short season. The lies abound in Paleo books and one should question everything. The most common lie is that they ate a lean diet because wild meat is lean. The truth is wild animals have layers of fat that was favored by all known primitive tribes in recent history. The Paleo people would not like lean mean any more than I do. I buy the cuts with the most fat because it just tastes better. Paleo people would have made the same decision because they weren't suffering from the modern day "fat phobia syndrome."

LC has restored my health. That is all the proof I need.

Kent

You're using low-carb and paleo interchangeably, though one is, I believe, the evolutionary perspective and the other is the modern perspective.

Low-carb is based on insulin control with the supporting argument "that's just how we evolved". The protective benefits of vegetables, fruits, berries, and even legumes are definitely not ignored. I know I eat boatloads more than I used to.

Paleo is based on anthropology/archaeology with the supporting argument "and that's why pasta shoots your insulin thru the roof".

The omega-3 (grass-fed) angle is perhaps low-carb-squared: insulin control for you and your livestock keeps your n3:n6 ratio correct. Or maybe paleo-squared: original diet for you and your livestock gives you paleo-health.

I think a more natural diet will probaly imrpove health. However, there are more than one natural diet. Some tribes ate mostly meat while some ate very little meat. Besides this fact, there is little evidence to point to their longevity. The evidence might point out to the fact that they were healthy while alive but not neccesarily longevity.

It seems to me that, the protective of nature of some non evolutionary items outweigh the negative side effects. This is only the case when the foods are eaten as naturally as possible.

I might be wrong - i think i'll probaly re-read that big paleo website (beyondveg.com)and the one i linked above and then make another reply.

I really think though that using fossil evidence and paleo remains is a terrible way to decide what diet is healthiest. It sounds very in exact. Even tho food surveys, that are used to give us an understanding into the eating habits of particular groups of people, are flawed, i still think they are better and more scientific evidence than food remains. It's just my opinion and its open to debate...

shadyAndy, your lack of simple logic makes my heat spin.

I hear the same illogical statements all the time. "Sure, on the Atkins' diet one looses weight, lowers high blood pressure, gives perfect cholesterol reading, elimininates skin problems, reverses diabetes, cures bowel diseases, cures fibromyalgia, blaa, blaa blaa ..... BUT IS IT HEALTHY?



Or as you say, "they were healthy while alive but not neccessarily longevity."

Are you saying LC make one health while alive but kills them early?

THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Finding the truth takes a lot of hard study, logic and the rejection of 100 years of dietary propaganda and lies put forth by vegetarians and the food manufacturing industry. Beyondveg is a good site to learn the health hazards of eating the vegetarian diet but NOT a good source for LC study. Start by reading all of the links on my web page below.

Kent

This article has probably been seen here before, but I thought I'd repost it in support of LC behavior in England, even in Neolithic times.

"First farmers" with no taste for grain
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba12/ba12feat.html


Info on the carnivorous "Lady of Trent" is in this magazine as well
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba66/news.shtml#item4

I wasn't really trying to debate the evidence of our paleo diet anyway. I was really trying to get at the fact that the so called paleo diet might only a succesful short term strategy as our ancestors weren't due for a long life anyway.

Not only that, but what if these high carbo foods contain chemicals and components that help extend our life and reduce stress in our bodies...

It seems to me that if we wanted a strategy for long term health then the remains of our paleo ancestors are no indication of this. Only the people on this planet now, living healthily well into old age.

I might be wrong....Kent please don't waste time picking apart my words, i'm only human. Let's look at the bigger picture...

I think it's too simplistic to use the longevity-diet link in this way. In recent decades we live even longer. Does that mean pizza extended our lives, or was it the Coke? It's as good a guess as saying it might be global waming or the stock market.

But no guessing is needed. You have to look at all aspects effecting longevity. Most important, and obvious, of all of them is mdeical care, vaxinations, antibiotecs, drugs, etc. Also wars, habitat, weather, natural predators, etc.

Wa'il

And clean water. That our early ancestors lived shorter lives does not mean their diet killed them. Remember also that average lifespan is heavily affected by infant mortality. Many babies died before age 1. It wasn't their diets that killed them.

Sheldon

shandyAndy's post is thought-provoking. It demonstrates that the low-carb way of eating is not a religious dogma, but rather an approach based on several scientific disciplines (endocrinology and evolutionary biology, to name two). As such, there are important differences of opinion among low-carb theorists and practitioners--and that is the sign of a vibrant approach, rather than of a stagnant one.

To point out one difference: Schwarzbein, an endocrinologist, stresses the need to balance our diet using all three food groups (fats, proteins, carbs) in order to balance our hormones. This is appears to be at odds with the evolutionary perspective of the Eadeses (PPLP), who believe no carbs are necessary. If our ancestors prior to 10,000 years ago had no grains at all and fruits and vegetables only part of the year, how did they balance their hormones? Did they need to? Is this not as important as Schwarzbein believes?

I don't know. Who's right? Again, I don't know.

A valid question is raised by the post. The evolutionary way at looking at things has certainly earned its stripes in many areas, from biology to political economy. Therefore evolutionary explanations always deserve serious attention. But that doesn't mean they are always correct. I can't see a reason to rule out the possibility that some food developed in the last 10,000 years is good for human beings. (Some low-carb advocates praise dairy products. Did our ancestors have them before they started farming?) It's just possible that we developed something that happens to be in harmony with our genetic makeup. Scientific investigation ought to be able to tell us so.

At least that's how it seems to me. I'm eager to hear counterarguments.

The point is that the study of nutrition is a life-long process. We'll probably never reach Final Truth. We can't know what we will discover tomorrow. All we can do is act on the best evidence we have today, understanding that tomorrow may force us to make some revisions.

This doesn't mean we can't be confident about anything. But some philosophical humility is always in order.

Sheldon

Sometimes I think people think too much inside the box when to comes to what our ancestors used to eat. Meat, fish, vegetables, fruit, grains.

It's most likely they ate whatever was even remotely edible. Anything that flew, walked or crawled, grew above or below ground. Insects, roots, fungi, berries...whatever. Everything was at one time tested for edibility. We are all overbred city folks. Most of us wouldn't survive six months in the wildnerness. We'd probably starve to death, if the elements didn't get to us first. We'd starve to death with food all around us, because it wouldn't occur to us it's food. So I think our assumptions as to what our ancestors ate on a daily basis are too much based on what can be found in our modern supermarkets.

I'm sure meat was a source of high quality food for our ancestors. But meat is unreliable, you need to catch it first, and that relies on skill, luck and avalaibility. There were surely periods where luck failed. The diet was probably heavily supplemented with easier stuff. Stuff that didn't run away from you.

Also I often hear people say that fruits and vegetables availability was limited by the seasons. Well that's only in the northen climates. If you believe the current evolutionary theory, humans emerged from Africa, which is not a temperate climate.

These are just random thoughts, I'm not an expert. I know the earth went through a must colder period, how that impacted the climate in Africa. We really need more data and less assumptions.

"Sheldon's reply: To point out one difference: Schwarzbein, an endocrinologist, stresses the need to balance our diet using all three food groups (fats, proteins, carbs) in order to balance our hormones. This is appears to be at odds with the evolutionary perspective of the Eadeses (PPLP), who believe no carbs are necessary."

The Schwarzbein Principle II makes a good point at balancing Protien, Carbs & Fat to control Adrenaline, Insulin & Cortisol.
Other books back up her claims. One that I own is The Cortisol Connection by Shawn Talbott, Ph.D. Even the Zone Diet speaks of balancing hormones. Which makes for a very complicated issue regarding the right diet, since no two persons have the same hormonal responses. Let me throw in another monkey wrench to this mix (Seratonin Levels)!!!

If you can control your seratonin levels you can supress hunger and carb cravings...