I’d be happy if I could just stick to whole foods. Way too many cheese nips in my kitchen.
Is anyone going to dispute Cecil’s assertion that there is little evidence that the Paleo diet will do better than your average pyramid diet?
The two posters who defended the Paleo diet in this thread could only defend it by repeating that it’s based on evolution. That’s not enough. Doing what we evolved to do can also be dangerous. There is no evidence that early humans actually benefited from a diet they were essentially forced to eat. No evidence that the early humans were healthier than humans today.
And if there was evidence that the early humans were healthier, then we would not be able to tell if it was from their diet or from their active lifestyle.
As a physician I would like to point out that most non-dangerous diets that meet certain criteria are all just about the same. Unless you have a specific medical reason to be a particular diet (celiac sprue in the case of gluten free for example) diets such as vegan, atkins, alkaline, paleo, or even the non-sexy ones like a balanced diet are all equally good by in large.
The study in the 1970’s that attacked the hi-fat American diet and lead to the low cholesterol craze was poorly done and has been shown to be in the case of early post menopausal women actually to increase heart disease and diabetes since it increased carbs and decreased fat and protein. Cholesterol isn’t the devil and saturated and trans-fats likewise, in MODERATION, are really not the villains that they have been portrayed.
The key is a heart healthy lifestyle
- Don’t smoke
- Blood Sugar at or below 105
- Cholesterol below 175
- Exercise 4-5 time a week for 30 minutes
- weight in the normal range
- adequate water intake
ANY diet that makes YOU feel OK, that keeps you at your ideal weight, that has adequate fiber is OK. While I smile at the diet fads that I listed above, as long as you get adequate nutrition and have a healthy lifestyle it really doesn’t matter. I do get upset when people try and tell me that their diet is the magic one and everyone should be FORCED to agree with them.
The reason you wouldn’t necessarially go for a diet from that transition period is because, based on archeaological evidence from all over the world, when we went from hunter-gatherer to agriculture our populations might have risen but our skeletons started showing signs of malnutrition and illness. Early agriculturalists were, on average, shorter, less robust, showed more signs of disease in their mortal remains, and had more dental problems. While there were more of them, their average lifespans were shorter.
Settled life allowed for a higher birth rate, or rather, infancy survival rate. Nomadic people typically limit their children to one every 3 or 4 years, sometimes enforced by infanticide whereas agriculturalists might have children every 2 years and allow both of a pair of twins to survive. Nomadic hunter-gatherers are also pretty ruthless in dealing with birth defects but agricultural lifestyles make it more likely a child with a defect will survive, also adding to the population whether that person reproduces or not.
So, at least initially, agriculture meant more people but shorter overall lifespans and more illness during that life. On the upside predators had a harder time hunting humans, you were more likely to eat something daily, and your physical comfort in regard to shelter and material goods improved.
While thousands of years have wrought a few changes in humans (like life-long capacity to digest lactose) it’s a drop in the bucket evolutionarily speaking. We have changed little over that time physically.
As I noted in a prior post, there is some evidence regarding hunter-gatherers and early agriculturalists side-by-side. While there is some evidence that HG’s were, on average, taller and healthier there were some really nasty other consequences to their lifestyle that resulted in many people opting for settled life. Even if the diet is better - and that’s not solidly proved - that doesn’t mean overall their lives were better.
Depends on your criteria. Once you’re past the adoption of agriculture, in comparison modern humans are taller, less likely to have signs of acute malnutrition in their bones, and live considerably longer than those early farmers. On the hand, we have more obesity, cancer, and heart disease - conditions not entirely absent in the ancient world but far less common than today. Probably because they require huge and on-going surpluses of food and living long enough to develop chronic conditions as opposed to, say, dying during a famine/crop failure, plague, or simply what today would be a minor infection that without antibiotics rages out of control.
HG’s tend to have modern human height or close to it, they eat a more varied diet than early farmers so are less likely to have chronic malnutrition but can show signs of interrupted growth linked to food shortages, are less likely to suffer from infectious diseases, but are more susceptible to predators and death in hunting accidents when the prey turns on the hunter.
Bingo.
It was probably the combination that did it.
- “The basic thesis of Paleo, is that organisms tend to thrive in environments similar to the ones in which they adapted to through evolution.” -
a) There is no reason to believe this is true. Evolution is about passing the genetic material on, living longer or better after that is done is only selected for under circumstances in which that further serves goal one, which it may or may not do.
b) We have continued and still continue to adapt through evolution and have changed in significant ways even over the last few thousand years. Evolution did not stop in Paleolithic times.
- “[W]e do have a very good idea of what the diet of ancient man was like …”
Yes we do and it bears little resemblence to what gets labeled as “paleo” in most circles. It, like more modern hunter-gatherer diets, varied greatly from location to location (as Scylla’s cited article documents), let alone from time to time. Certainly it was moderately high in protein (19 to 35%) with the protein generally coming from game (including marrow and organ meats), fish, and aquatic fowl. Note these sources are not much like modern beef. They are leaner and very high in monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) and PUFAs. Most were also quite high in omega 3. So moderately high protein for a modern diet with lowish carb (certainly no highly refined carbs or added sugars), high fiber, and a fat intake that was high in MUFAs, PUFAs, and omega 3s. Minimally processed foods. Clearly Scylla gets this as he goes on to bemoan the nutritional value of feedlot beef. But most who “go paleo” do not: they use it as justification for eating bacon and beef. In short unless one is eating mostly fish and poultry and/or has regualar access to wild game, one is not replicating anything within the wide variety of what paleolithic humans ate.
- Indeed there is no evidence that paleo has better outcomes than a diet high in whole grains, low in refined carbohydrate, high in vegetables and fruits, lean animal protein sources including fish, legumes, dairy, and plant oils high in MUFAs (such as olive oil, canola oil, and avocados). Or many versions of vegan diets for that matter. Or really nearly any diet high in fiber that avoids highly processed foods including but not limited to highly refined carbohydrates, added sugar, and processed meats.
This revisit of Paleo nutrition by the grandparents of the movement 25 years later (Eaton and Konner in 2010) may be of interest to some:
Really not too dissimilar to the current food plate other than the absence of legumes (and curiously nuts), and a bit more protein and less grain. And the evidence of the health of diets that include legumes and nuts is pretty solid.
I thought we had seen clear signs that early humans had a lot of grain in their diets from the wear. Did that just start in the agricultural age?
This may be what you are thinking of.
Certainly some populations ate grains. Again, there was no diet that we adapted to in evolutionary times: there were multiple diets in multiple environments in multiple different times.
Thanks. Actually I meant tooth wear and just forgot the key word. But I would assume humans ate grain for a long time wherever grain was available.
People have, yes. I mean scientists, not random strangers on the Internet. There’s a famous essay by Jared Diamond that asserts that agriculture, and the shift in diet from paleolithic to mostly grain-based, leaves definite archaeological evidence of poorer health, growth and longevity. I think he says something like if you look at 10,000 year old bones in Asia Minor and compare to 2,000 year old bones, you find after the transition from hunter-gatherer to settled agricultural society people were shorter, more riddled with disease, and died younger. There could be other causes, of course, but you also find things like they had way more cavities but many fewer broken teeth, which suggests a diet that shifted from scruffy natural pickings (hence the broken teeth) to higher sugar foods, like grains, which were more often processed, e.g. at least cooked, if not ground and baked into bread or something. (The higher sugar content encourages the growth of bacteria that causes cavities.)
It certainly involves long chains of evidence, and a lot of indirect evidence. But that’s kind of par for the course in archaeology and anthropology, where actual evidence is thin on the ground.
It’s a pretty disappointing response by Cecil, honestly. Seems kind of phoned in, and relies on the conventional wisdom of the 1970s and 1980s. A little more work could have at least laid out the reasoning of those who think there’s something to it – which is by no means trivial or faddish, and includes plenty of medical professionals and scientists. He might also have taken notice of the increasing publication in very well respected medical journals questioning whether it’s the fat or the sugar in the modern diet that is generally harmful. Certainly the single biggest difference between a “paleo” diet and a modern diet is the very large reduction in sugar intake.
Furthermore, you don’t need to go back to caveman times to detect the differences diet makes. Diet has changed enough in recent decades of recorded history to undertake a study, although advances in medicine obviously complicate things. But there the evidence is pretty damning: American obesity – as well as associated ills such as metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes – has risen strongly in the decades since the “food pyramid” was introduced and pushed, and there was a large push by authority, both medical and governmental, to eliminate fat from the diet in favor of carbohydrate. That could be merely a very unfortunate coincidence, but it’s troubling enough the connection should not be dismissed instantly.
Finally, the business about the activity level and eating patterns of our distant ancestors is in this context a bit of a red herring. Those things almost certainly matter also, and most proponents of “paleo” also think you should be much more active, and many practice periodic fasting, for the excellent reason that there are known benefits to this. (Populations which fast for religious reasons on a regular basis, e.g. roughly once a month, turn out to have measureably lower risks of cardiovascular disease even if they eat an otherwise poor diet.)
But just because you should also be more active and consider not eating every 3-4 hours every day of your life does not mean you shouldn’t bother examining the main basis of your diet. And the “paleo” point of view, that you should greatly respect what your body evolved to consume, is on very solid biological grounds. It is unscientific of Cecil to treat it as in the same silly category as juice flushes by movie stars.
Holy crap, it’s a voice of reason! I thought those had been hunted to extinction.
About that “very lean” thing, just because venison is not well marbled it does not mean there is no fat on a deer, and HGs will go out of their way to eat all of the fat found in their prey, especially kidney fat and yellow marrow. We find long bones broken with stone tools to access the marrow dating to all through the Paleolithic, so we’re back to “they ate what they could get,” the mark of an omnivore.
Yes, and the sort of fats those tissues contain is very different than the fats of feed lot beef cuts: again, high in MUFAs, and PUFAs including omega threes.
Carl Pham, thing is that such may be true but not so related to the question you are answering. Agriculture led to a huge population explosion, an imbalanced major dependence on grain that was not anything like the advised food pyramids or plates, people living in crowded areas with domesticated animals (and infectious diseases from animal sources crossing over into humans).
Was a smaller population eating a much more varied diet healthier per average individual than those who lived crowded together intermixed with domesticated animals and eating a very narrow diet way overweighted to grain? Little doubt.
Does that in any way inform upon the question that was asked, how the diets of our paleolithic ancestors compared with health outcomes to a typical pyramid or plate or Mediterranean diet plan, that includes good amounts of whole grain and legumes along with lots of vegetables and fruits? No.
How (if one wanted to) would one get a diet similar to that of many of our Paleolithic ancestors in its being higher end in protein, fiber, MUFAs, PUFAs including omega threes, and relatively low in many saturated fats? Not by eating lots of feedlot beef. Not by eating how many who claim to be eating “Paleo” eat.
One could come closer actually with little of what is commonly available as red meat, and instead lots of legumes, fish, poultry, and plant oils high in MUFAs like olive and canola oil. (Along with lots of vegetables and fruits and some whole grain.) Mainly anything that moves away from the Standard American Diet of highly processed food with a majority of the grain being refined and lots of added sugars will be an improvement.
Up until a couple years ago I hadn’t heard of Alex Chilton, but I had assumed that the song was made in 1963 by a 30-something black dude.
But they also eat any other fat they find. Gorge on it. Don’t share it with the dogs. And during the Ice Ages, especially, there was much more of the nasty fat on their prey, and that was a big stretch of when we developed. Any suggestion by Paleo fans that our ancestors limited their fat intake to good fats for any reason other than they had already eaten all the bad fat is not realistic.
“Paleo” has nothing to do with what they wanted to eat; it is about what they did eat. The opportunity to gorge on fat relative to protein was rare, and when it occurred the fat was high in MUFAs and PUFAs especially n 3s. Including in the ice age. They would have gorged on sugar and salt if it was available too; mostly it wasn’t is all.
Including mammoths and wooly rhinos? Please humor my ignorance of good and bad fats. All I know is what I learned 40 (and 30, and 20, and 10, and 0) years ago, and back then ALL animal fat was bad. And explain how the fat in feedlot beeves is different from the fat in a bison that is stuck in an early snowdrift. Pemmican does not sound like health food.
As for what they did eat, that is highly dependent on where they lived and the season, and Homo lived all over for quite a long time. That makes creating THE Paleo Diet nonsensical. It’s better to eat what’s good for you and avoid the shit, and most folks know the difference. Not everybody; I worked with a guy who, after his stroke at 36, switched from Big Macs to Filets o’ Fish “Because my doctor said I should eat more fish.” The fries were plant matter, so they were vegetables, right? But most people who aren’t morons know the difference. It’s getting them to make that lifestyle change that is the problem, of course, and as you said, the Paleo Diet isn’t any worse than most non-crazy diets. Maybe not as easy to stick to as a diabetic diet modified for non-diabetics, like Weight Watchers, but hipper.
When ruminants eat (sheep, goats, bison, cattle, buffalo), what they eat is processed and digested in their rumen by different bacteria. These bacteria produce different types of volatile fatty acids that are then absorbed by the animal for energy (and fat storage, if surplus).
Depending on what they eat:
-
The bacteria present in the rumen vary. The different species are adapted to different types of plant matter.
-
Processing the plant matter can alter the pH of the rumen. This can also play a part on the bacterial population, as some species prefer higher or lower pHs.
-
Different plant matters and different species can produce different total proportions of the various volatile fatty acids. So if diet X gives a total volatile fatty acid production of 20% A, 40% B, and 40% C, diet Y may give proportions like 30% of A, 20% of B, and 50% of C.
What I cannot remember and don’t have at hand right now is if this impacts the overall nutritional value of the meat obtained from the animal. That is, is the difference in fats that great as to produce meats with strikingly different nutritional values? And if so, what are the diets that cause this?
Of course we cannot say with certainty about wooly mammoths and wooly rhinos, but we do know about extant wild cold climate large mammals. Those actually have significant fat stores for only a few months out of the year and fairly quickly deplete them. The meat is not so marbled. Most of the fat in those animals comes from marrow and organ meats which, again, are high in MUFAs and PUFAs including n-3s. Details in the link provided in my post #34:
Now I am not suggesting that we eat lots of brain tissue just because it is high in omega 3s. Just pointing out that animal fats are not all equal, indeed some from some sorces may be protective, and the wild game (and marine) sources of animal fats (heavy on marrow and organs as fat sources from game) had a very different profile than feedlot beef.
Looking just at the [subcutaneous adipose tissue](file:///Users/gabeseidman/Downloads/dugan%20muskox%20paper%202007.pdf) between foraging musk oxen (a cold weather large mammel) and beef (finshed with barley rather than corn in this case)
And this is fun … we actually do know something about mammoths!
BTW, blubber (such as from whales) is mostly MUFA and n-3s, not at all similar to beef fat. The traditional Inuit hunter-gatherer diet is low in saturated fats and high in MUFA and n-3s.