chinatown--

I think my goal is slightly unrealistic. I seemed to have stabilized at 162-163. To go lower I'd have to do things that are probably not good to do--like cut out all fruits and nuts. I really should change my goal and accept this as my natural weight.

Regards,
Sheldon

I read the 3 part article by the Eskimo anthropologist re meat eating. I have not read anything like that before.
<P>The imagination staggers at what he went thru by force of his will, he adapted, he overcame, and he learned a lot. I like the sidebar story on caries too. Unbelievable. This thing is a real eye opener. I like hunting, but I'd never eat anything I shot. I don't shoot ducks, kangaroos are too tough, boars are too diseased, etc. And fishing exceeds my attention span -too much of nothing happening.
<P>I fancy I could go polynesian and live on prawns (shrimp)! But prawns cost $15 a kilo (that would be $US30 for 2.2lb.) I don't like seafood much at all.<P> Anyway, the article was a good stimulant. Thanks.

I have stabilized with about a 76-78 pound weight loss and haven't moved down for about four and a half months, now. I really wanted to be back at my old world-class rock climbing weight of the 60s, but, I don't think my body wants to go there, any longer. I've lost more by cutting back on fruit and nuts, but, I gain it right back when I eat two pieces of fruit and a few nuts, each day, and I'm not going to compromise my system to get to that weight if my body is telling me that it is comfortable here. Besides, I'm not planning to climb the big walls that I used to in Yosemite at this time in my life. My weight is great for hiking and backpacking with ultralight equipment, as evidenced by my hiking almost 200 miles last summer with my brother in the Sierras and the Cascades, and even climbing one big mountain, as well as no more high blood pressure, and feeling absolutely fantastic! The compliments from others doesn't hurt, either.

Hi, Sheldon. Old thread, but I though I'd trow in my .02 anyway.

Back a while ago, I took a few anthro courses. Of course, we discussed hunter-gatherer cultures. They are way more healthy than agricultural societies. They tend to consume fewer calories, obviously fewer carbs (almost none), and get quite a bit of exercise in their daily routines. The few that are left today have very low cholesterol and extremely low incidences of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

I think life spans increased with advent of an agriculture because it was safer to an extent. You are less likey to die from plating corn, than say from running down a gazelle or by chance being bitten by a snake while gathering. Also, an agricutural society allowed people to set down roots, which in turn gave them the ability to start looking into things like medicine.

Just my .02.

I wish we could get a little more participation on this line of thinking...paleo...but, oh, well. I still haven't lost a thing since my last post in December. In fact, I've gained about 8 pounds...and am still eating the same stuff I always did on this WOE. Go figure. It's Winter. Maybe when the weather warms up, I will lose, again. I don't know why I can't seem to lose any more weight. Maybe my ancestors were tubs-o-lard and I have their genes. I feel very healthy. I am still doing my exercises and my body continues to fill out in places it never did before. My fat index doesn't seem to want to go any lower, either. Oh, well.

Maybe your ancestors were cold-weather adapted and your body is pre-disposed to hold onto weight in the winter? Works for me! LOL

I found this thread interesting, as an Anthro major (freshman, don't expect enlightenment!), the idea that we are evolved to eat a hunter/gatherer diet makes perfect sense to me. 10,000 year or so is very little time for our bodies to adapt to a completely different diet. We can survive on high-carb, but it's not what we function best on. That said, I'm not sure that I agree that the HG diet was completely grain or dairy free. I believe that there would have been some grain comsumption, not a complete dependence, but a regular consumption. Grain is very easy to store, and probably would have been stocked for the winter. As for dairy, this is a little more off the wall, but, when you kill a nursing animal, why waste? Most parts of an animal are eaten in HG cultures, I really can't imagine that milk would be an exception? Feel free to call me on this one! LOL

Capt, Been a lurker on this thread, waiting for new posts on the subject. Neanderthin is next on my to read list. The subject intrigues me. A thought on the winter weight. In a survival sense, wouldn't one need to gain additional body fat for the winter for additional body heat and energy stores because of less frequent food consumption? There was a show called Northern Exposure set in Alaska. One episode featured everyone eating calories like mad to put on weight to get ready for winter. In a survival aspect it makes sense, Just like bears!!

Liz

Bump

Hi Folks - my very first post ever to any forum - so here goes.

I've just read this thread from beginning to end and I don't think anyone has raised the point about food storage. Grain, once dried, can be easily and safely stored for many months or years. To preserve meats prior to advent of refrigeration needed labour intensive salting or smoking processes. The oils in nuts and seeds will become oxidised in storage leading to rancidity. So carbs are easier to store than foods with high protein or oil/fat content.

Therefore - I'd just like to propose the idea that one of the reasons for the spread of agricultural was that those H/G groups with a few pots full of stored grain would be better able to survive periods of food shortage that H/G groups who were soley dependent upon hunting and gathering.

A bit of personal info - newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic early January 2003 - overweight - bad blood profile, typical syndrome X. Since January have followed Pritikin type diet with lots of whole grains and very low protein and fat. Lots of exercise ran 160 miles and walked 80 total in 10 weeks to early March.
Results: lost about 8 or 9 lbs then plateaued - desperately hungry all the time, blood sugars still too high ... until ...

Inspired by BBC Diet Trials evaluation of Atkins diet - investigated low carb last Monday (24March) - came across Active Low-Carber Forums - ordered Bernstein's book (Diabietes Solution) same day from Amazon.co.uk, cut down on carbs (low rather than zero). Results: not been hungry since start of low carbing, last two days have had pretty near normal blood sugars (although fasting result is still high in morning due to liver insulin resistance). I'm sure that my total daily calorie consumption has dropped markedly since eating all this "unhealthy" stuff.

One other point related to the thread - there was a discussion about the effects upon the grain industry if low carb diets became more popular - don't forget that there is a massive vested interest in the sale of industrially produced meat products - look at the mess we got into here in the UK with mad cow disease. Consumption of beef dropped way off, just like the consumption of eggs when our food minister (Edwina Currie at the time, more latterly famous for having a secret affair with prime minister John Major) announced that most British chicken flocks were rife with Salmonella in the early 80's. She lost here job for being honest with the public and the egg industry collapsed for a while.

Looking forward to reading more of these forums and thanks for all the inspiring info. I just hope I haven't harmed myself long term with all the high carb stuff prior to last Monday, BTW, further 5lbs off in last 6 days.

John P

The population increases because the food increses, not the nutrition of the population, at least not the nutrition of the people at the bottom of the heirarchy. The purpose is to facillitate a sedentary lifestyle, consolidation of surplus and the growth of a labor force for the upper classes. The best book that I have ever read on the subject is The Story of B by Daniel Quinn.

LizB.

Not a cogent argument, but a few observations that bear on this discussion:

1. Average Life Expectancy is exactly that: average. The biggest factor in lowering that average is high infant mortality. It does seem likely that this fell drastically during the neolithic agricultural revolution. As a suggestion, this may be because on of the effects of NAR was almost certainly larger communities, more free time and less travel. Nomadic lifestyles can be hard on babies!

2.Re the dairy thing: evolution doesn't stop. Europeans now rarely switch off their ability to digest milk after the weaning period. Milk is the best possible food for young humans - having it available and digestable through all the lifespan is just a little useful!

3. I've read some similar books, but why did he have to call it Neanderthin - Neanderthals aren't our ancestors!

4. Nobody actually knows the make-up of the diet of our ancestors in the 10,000 to 150,000 timespan. How important was gathering roots (about 60%to 90% of diet for modern hunter-gatherers!)? How about only eating nuts and fruits for the month or so a year they are in season? Did gathering handfuls of wild grain contribute significantly to early diet, long befoe agrarianism?

5. I really worry about the quality of the protein available now - ther is a huge difference in HDL/LDL balance between wild and domestic animals.

What do people think?

Ian in London and Ketosis

*tumbleweed*

Looks like you have a great thread going here. I'm new here and I switched to a more "Paleo" style of eating a few years ago. I only consider myself "semi-Paleo" because I do have some Neolithic tendencies. That is I partake of grains, but only in their whole unaldulterated form.....no storebought fake whole grain products. I found that combining a diet where I eat a low-fat grain grain/vegetable/protein diet during the week and a higher fat protein/vegetable diet (includes lots of nuts and fatty fish) on the weekends I am able to maintain my best health. I do a lot of backpacking and weight lifting so I need some carbs. I generally do not eat store bought meat because I don't like the way its processed....at least with fish, there's not too much they can do to ruin it unless it's farmed fish.

I have some theories of my own on life expectancy and the state of modern man's health. I don't think the obesity and health problems of the Western civilization can be blamed on carbs, fat, or protien.....I believe firmly that its the way the food industry has altered and perverted our natural food supply. The question is, what can you do about it? Obviously, the whole world can't start eating grass-fed animal, fruits, and vegetables. For one thing, there would never be enough pasture to support a food supply like this. For another thing, 80% of the planet wouldn't be able to afford such a diet. How can you help the starving in Africa?....grain products, and teaching them to grow their own and combining these with their own native healthy foods, to include fish and livestock. It's the only way.

People only live longer today because of advances in science. We're not healthier than our ancestors, we're pathetic in comparison. Even if you look back at the founding fathers of this country....John Adam, Benjamin Franklin, and others lived well into their 80's....in the 1700's with no antibiotics or anything. They continued to be productive until their deaths. They didn't live for years with crippling diseases. The average life expectancy back then was much shorter only because of the great number who succumbed to flu and other viruses at an early age. Today, we can easily cure these things in most cases. If our ancestors had the same medical science we have today, yet still maintained their diet and lifestyle, who's to say how long they may have lived?

An interesting book I recently read called "The Rosedale Diet" pointed out that diabetes is more or less the same as aging. Something in the neolithic diet appears to be aging people fairly rapidly compared to the diet of hunter-gatherers. One of the things triggering early puberty in the last century is the introduction of soy as a filler to many processed meats. I don't recall is soy contains estrogen or merely something very much like estrogen, but it's not recommended for children or for males of any age.

soy has phytoestrogens which mimic estrogen. this is the link i give to anyone who is eating soy still

http://www.theomnivore.com/The%20Soy%20Page.html