Cite?
And kuru! So lay off you late uncle’s brain, no matter how much you loved and respected him.
Offhand, I’d say it is obvious enough to not need a cite, if you give it any thought. HGs live from hand to mouth, pretty much literally, and there are times when the livin’ is easy and other times when you leave Grandpa on an ice floe because there isn’t enough food for everybody to survive. Plant life and game are seasonal, so starvation stalks many hunter/gatherers much of the time.
But then again, maybe not. Or at least any more so than for agriculturalists in the same environments.
It does however seem likely that all groups had periods of starvation. It was the larger caloric production of agriculture that allowed for populations to grow … and then starve with a poor crop year; whereas HGs were limited by fod supplies.
Several days at a time isn’t really famine. It still happens frequently today for some people. This is hardly a controversial statement.
Didn’t say that farmers had it much better, and monoculture, with its risk of famine from a single plant disease, has been with most ag societies all along. And it’s equally obvious that HGs, with more sources of food and a culture of acquiring it, have more options than most poor dirt farmers, though the divide between the groups wasn’t as abrupt until recently (a few thousand years to a few hundred years).
Fun read: 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, in which I learned about how the pre-Columbian people of the Americas tended the “wild” land to better serve their needs as parttime HGs, so that wherever they went in their territories they could find their favorite foods. I knew about the Californians and their oak “orchards,” where they kept brush from choking their sources of acorns, but apparently it also included Amazonia, which was much more heavily populated before European diseases decimated the population. (Is “decimated” the right term when ten or less percent survived rather than ten percent were killed?)
Depends on different values for “often” … I suspect that winter/dry months made some hungry days … I am a bit uncomfortable however just assuming it to be so.
Good point that the divide between HG and agriculturalist is so bright as some would believe.
Modern hunter-gatherers like the Hadza of Tanzania, the Kalahari San, and the !Kung of Botswana only spend around 2-3 hours per day acquiring food. If they were on the brink of starvation I suspect that they’d spend more of their time hunting an foraging.
And others only work 45 minutes, according to something I read years ago and have no idea whether it was true or not. 
That was what I meant when I said “there are times when the livin’ is easy.” When there is water those people live in salutary climes for hunting and gathering, but they are in trouble when there is not, especially at the end of the dry season when the stored vegetable foods start running out.
We should lobby for a more realistic Paleo Diet, including termites and grubs and water that still tastes bad after you let the mud and bugs settle out. We’ll see how long the cool kids stick to it.
Yes. And?
Are you trying to make the argument that these specific three modern HG groups, who for some particular reasons never adopted agriculture or other more modern technologies, are a good representation of the majority of HG groups across a variety of habitats, climates, and across tens of thousands of years?
The article is old but it is still interesting. More about the problems HG faced in late Winter and early Spring when prey was very fat depleted and little carb sources were available. Too much protein as a percent of intake. What did HGs do?
Died? Got real sick? Ate the stomach contents of their prey for the vitamins? All of the above?
Read a book on the Norwegian commandos who raided a heavy water plant in WWII. They had nothing to eat for weeks except reindeer and ate stomach contents, eyes, and other unappetizing stuff for the vitamins. They claimed reindeer eyes are full of healthy stuff, but I haven’t seen them on Paleo diets.
Yes but more interesting are the tactics to avoid that.
First the basic idea that HGs in temperate grasslands, inland arctic, subarctic, and northern deciduous forest environments all had to deal with this issue every year, some years more than others.
Second is that there is high protein and there is high protein. The typical HG diet was high protein (19 to 35%) but you cannot go much over 35% chronically without starting to get sick from it - you need other calorie sources (either carbs or fat, whichever you can get) to process the nitrogen so the ammonia does not build up and kill you.
In 2000 Loren Cordain put it like this:
Basically HGs in those circumstances were deperate for fat and carb sources, even more than for calories, because they were topped out on protein intake. Boil the chopped bones to skim the fat, not just obvious marrow and fat rich organs, yes the stomach contents of hunted game, store fat during the Fall to use later (either by itself or mixed with meat and possibly some berries as pemmican), store carb foods to get through as well, trade with coastal populations that had access to marine fat sources, get as fat as you could yourself in the Fall so you had the fat to mobilize for a while.
My cites are two books I’ve read over 10 years ago–one was about how different human populations have developed genetic mutations that allow them to tolerate certain foods (e.g., ability to digest lactose as adults, decreased sensitivity to capsaicin), and a differnet book called Changes in the Land, about 17th-century hunter-gatherer Native Americans in New England and their winter diets.
Can we agree that these diets were nothing like what is being billed as the Paleo Diet? I’m especially amused with the inclusion of avocados because they only entered the menu ~10,000YA in a limited area (Puebla, Mexico) well outside the main stream of recent human evolution–we would not have evolved to eat them specifically. But if the good doctor says I should eat more avocados because they’re good for me, who am I to argue?
I posted with the paleo premise that organisms tend to thrive in environments similar to the ones they are adapted to through evolution.
In an otherwise excellent post Dseid took issue with this saying that evolution is about passing on genes, not thriving and feeling good. This was a bit of a head scratcher for me, since the example I gave of organisms thriving only in environments they were adapted to explained why goldfish have failed to colonize arid grasslands.
What I think Dseid meant was that you don’t necessarily have to feel good or be super fit to pass on your genes. This is true, but it’s also true that being strong and healthy is an evolutionary advantage that can favors procreation. Slight advantages can lead to big evolutionary changes, and being strong and healthy enough to outcompete rivals, and secure the best mates is no slight thing. I think my point stands.
Anyhow, the point of paleo is that between 10 million years or so ago, up until the relatively recent dawn of agriculture our hominid ancestors consumed pretty much the same thing: wild animal meat, vegetables, fruits and nuts.
That was all that was available. Bone analysis says to more animal products and protein than is common today. We are still pretty well adapted to that kind of diet, and tend to thrive on it.
The big change with the dawn of agriculture gave us grains, and grain products, legumes and dairy. Some of us are well adapted to those things, some of us less so.
Two other big changes have occurred to our diet. In the mid 20th century we considered fat, and red meat to be the enemy. The food period reflected this and increased the recommended grains and carbs, and reduced the meats. While it’s debatable, this may have been a mistake. Correlation is not causation, but obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and other modern ills increased. It might have nothing to do with the food pyramid, and those ills may be ills of simple overall excessive consumption and not attributable simply to grains. In the absence of surety, I follow my hominid ancestors emphasize basic proteins, fats, veggies, and fruit, and deemphasize the grains.
Far more important than this, and, I think far more more important to modern health problems has been the relatively recent introduction of industrial foods. This is where I think paleo has a lot to say, and can have a hugely positive effect on most people’s health.
Industrial food is all kinds of processed shit that just wasn’t available for consumption until the last few decades. It’s food that was very carefully designed to make us crave and consume it, buy lots and lot of it, and keeping eating it. We can charitably say that nutritional value, if any, was a secondary consideration. Highly processed and chemical in nature, industrial food has us consuming chemicals, and preservatives that at no point ever in our evolutionary history were ever available to us. We are not adapted to them, they are adapted to our cravings. I suppose you can survive on twinkies and wonder bread and tang, and soda and Doritos, and frozen pizza, and TV dinners and other highly processed fair, but I don’t know how long you can thrive on them without suffering health consequences.
I think people who focus on paleo being against grain are missing the larger point which is really about trying to limit or eliminate modern industrial foods.
I started by eating the basic meats, fruits, vegetables, and nuts diet, and cutting out the industrial. Processed food completely. My health improved, I felt better, and as an ultra-runner I saw my physical performance soar. I introduced some basic grains in moderation without ill effect (read “beer”.) Than dairy, without problems. Legumes though, don’t work for me.
I know that things like broccoli or bananas are products of human intervention and we’re not available to my hominid ancestors. I also know that there is a huge difference between today’s modern farmed meats and what caveman might have caught and killed. I’m not trying to be perfect or crazy about it. I go for grass fed organic beef when I can get it, free range chicken, and wild caught fish. I try to eat lots of simply prepared fresh vegetables, fruits, and nuts. I avoid processed and packaged food.
What we think of as grains or carbs bear very little resemblance to what used to be available. Try getting some organically milled grain or better yet mill your own and bake bread or make something with it. Now go to a store and try to buy something that even remotely resembles what you made. It’s pretty difficult to do, so industrialized and processed are today’s grain based foods.
Paleo works, because it is a very simple and easy remember guide to eating well. Don’t eat anything that your distant ancestors would not have recognized as food. Don’t eat anything that they couldn’t have eaten or prepared. If you are not well adapted to grains, or dairy, or legumes steer clear. If not, then don’t worry about them.
Our ancestors led a more active lifestyle as a whole than we do, and exercise is good for you, so do that, too.
Ten million years ago? Which ancestors are you talking about? The Homo species dates no more than 2 million years ago, and there’s doubt whether Homo Habilis should have been considered part of homo. It’s likely that Habilis was not much of a meat eater. You’d have to get on this side of two million years to have the first ancestor who could be thought of truly human – homo erectus.
Ten million years ago, the chimpanzee and human lines hadn’t yet split. That took place a mere 5 to 7 million years ago, and it’s likely even after that split, most of our ancestors were primarily vegetarian and eating stuff you wouldn’t be able to digest. You’d be hard pressed as a human to be able to live on a diet that our ancestors thrive on 10 million years ago.
If these message boards are talking about a ten million year old diet, they’re not something I would trust with basic facts about nutrition.
Our species has been pretty dang good at adopting to a wide variety of diets. We thrived in almost any climate that our planet has to offer. It’s why we can be found planet wide while our closest cousins never made it out of Africa.
As for grains, rice grows naturally in Southeastern Asia. Wheat and barely grow naturally all around what is known as Asia Minor (which would be one of the first spots homo colonized outside of Africa). It’s very likely that our ancient ancestors ate those evil grains as part of their paleo diet.
I am sorry if I was unclear Scylla. Realize that evolution selects for some organisms to die soon after procreation. It makes evolutionary sense for a male praing mantis to be eaten by the female immedately after sex (even though its “always” happening turns out to be not true). The point is that as a modern human, now mid 50s, I am concerned about being strong, active, vibrant, and healthy, physically and cognitively, for the next 30 to 40 years, even though I am done procreating. There is an argument to be made that human evolution selects for survivial into older age as older kinship members can help facilitate the survival of multiple subsequent generations with passed on knowledge and resources, but there is also an argument to be made that statistically we are more likely to be an albatross than an asset. The evolutionary argument makes the most sense for keeping one “fit” from a reproductive desirability and fertility perspective within a defined peak reproductive period. After that however the argument has little strength.
Bottom lines:
-
a diet that consists to large degree of the meat that most people consume now has little in common with the animal food sources any of our varied ancestors ate in pre-agricultural times. A Paleo perspective would therefore conclude it should be avoided if the only criterea was eating like our ancestors ate.
-
modern humans thrive on a variety of diets, including ones without any animal protein.
-
the Standard American Diet, full of processed shit/industrial foods, is not contained within that variety of diets that modern humans thrive on.
If “Paleo” works for a particular person as a nutrition plan they can stick with that keeps them off that processed shit (mileage may vary for different interpretations of “Paleo”) and eating a diet high in fiber, vegetables, fruits, MUFAs and PUFAs including omega 3s, and at least adequate quality protein, then wonderful! Legumes don’t work for you is a different statement then claiming that legumes are presumed bad because they were not part of “the” HG diet.
If vegan does, wonderful as well. Same with a Mediterranean inspired nutrition plan or a DASH plan or a low carb one. Or Pollan’s basic: “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.” (Meaning real food, not processed shit.)
The message that the Food Industrial Complex is a major contributor to modern health problems is not unique to the Paleo movement, and whatever message resonates with you to get out of its grip is a good one in my mind.
Ha-ha. Four million years ago our ancestors had enlarged canine teeth and could pick fruit with their feet. I think we can allow for a little modification since then.
Makes sense, but that Swiss chard would be healthier cooked (breaks down the oxalic acid, which interferes with the absorption of calcium) and tastier with chopped tomatoes (not available in the Eocene), a bit of peanut butter (all-natural is best, of course), and more than a bit of Tabasco (also not available in the Eocene). For that matter, neither were Jonathan apples, nor any other apples. The crickets and grubs are not anachronistic.
When our ancestors adopted an agricultural diet the initial effects were not good. People became shorter. The skeletons they left give evidence of malnutrition and parasites.
In time the agricultural diet became more varied. Without understanding the chemistry behind amino acids people learned to mix grains and beans to get complete protein.
With an agricultural diet the consumption of protein declined. The consumption of carbohydrate increased. The bodies of our ancestors evolved to handle the increased carbohydrate consumption.
Groups of people who have more recently adopted an agricultural diet - I am thinking mainly of North American Indians and Australian Aborigines - are more likely to suffer from type 2 diabetes.
Also, a diet that is extremely high in protein can be harmful for people whose ancestors have consumed an agricultural diet for many thousands of years.