Paleolithic diet

[j]

WTF, are we supposed to reply with the single word "no", or "sorry, I'm not a dietician or a doctor or a nutritionist"? This site is primarily about clothing. Why are you expecting serious and informed answers to a question about an obscure diet? And why are you copping an attitude when you don't get the answers you want?

 

[Boogieman]

What I expected in response to my first post was either no replies at all or someone with deeper knowledge of this diet to answer my questions. I was hoping for informed answers to my questions about this pretty well known diet, not expecting them. My attitude comes from beeing made fun of by RJMan, faustian bargain and dusty. I'm not looking for an apology (I know I'd never get one), "copping an attitude" is just how I react to beeing ridiculed. I stated my honest opinion quite clearly in the end of my previous post, I was hoping you would close the thread after that.

 

[dusty]

I don't think anybody was making fun of you; all the jokes were about the oddly-named diet. We're just joking around anyway. Lighten up.

 

[j]

If you want to close the issue, and if we all suck, you're welcome to leave at any time. No one is keeping you here. I won't close the thread just because you whine.

 

[ken]

Humans have evolved plenty since the origins of food production. Just look at disease resistance. The 'paleolithic' diet might not even be valid anymore (especially because, as I said, modern veggies don't have near the nutrients of pre-production veggies).

p.s. You are a stupid non-American if you eat this way. Stupid, stupid, stupid..

 

[RJman]

In case your mothers never told you, this is rude and stupid behaviour. But hey, you're Americans, you're middleaged and you're surely overweight; so I guess that's what I should have expected.

You suck.

You're in Sweden eh? Maybe you need some more of that sunlight therapy or something. Your diet sounds fine, it was just the name that piqued my interest. Thank you for your ad hominem attacks, though.

 

[globetrotter]

Humans have evolved plenty since the origins of food production. Just look at disease resistance. The 'paleolithic' diet might not even be valid anymore (especially because, as I said, modern veggies don't have near the nutrients of pre-production veggies).

p.s. You are a stupid non-American if you eat this way. Stupid, stupid, stupid..

actually, ken, people haven't evolved that much in the past 10,000 years. we are remarkably like our ancestors who hunted and gathered. vegitables, that is another story...

 

[FIHTies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boogieman,July 05 2005,14:02
In case your mothers never told you, this is rude and stupid behaviour. But hey, you're Americans, you're middleaged and you're surely overweight; so I guess that's what I should have expected. You suck.
You're in Sweden eh? Maybe you need some more of that sunlight therapy or something. Your diet sounds fine, it was just the name that piqued my interest. Thank you for your ad hominem attacks, though.
RJMan: Please... Thats not ad hominem. Get with the program... Everybody knows that in America we go straight from 12 to 45 with pot bellies. But what can I expect from someone who dated fat and lazy (not to mention ugly and money hungry grubby) people.

 

[ken]

actually, ken, people haven't evolved that much in the past 10,000 years. we are remarkably like our ancestors who hunted and gathered. vegitables, that is another story...

But do we really know that for sure? The diets of hunter-gatherers can be hugely different than of those in agricultural societies (since most edible plants/animals aren't/can't be domesticated). Doesn't that open up a niche for humans in food-producing societies to fare better on agriculturally produced foods? There has obviously been plenty of time for it (again, think of all the disease immunity we've built up).

That's another reason this 'paleolithic' diet might be bunk. You can't really eat the foods hunter/gatherers ate unless you actually hunt and gather. I guarantee no indiginous Australian has ever eaten a cow or a 3/4 pound ear of corn.

 

[globetrotter]

Quote:

(globetrotter @ July 05 2005,18:04) actually, ken, people haven't evolved that much in the past 10,000 years. we are remarkably like our ancestors who hunted and gathered. vegitables, that is another story...
But do we really know that for sure?  The diets of hunter-gatherers can be hugely different than of those in agricultural societies (since most edible plants/animals aren't/can't be domesticated). Doesn't that open up a niche for humans in food-producing societies to fare better on agriculturally produced foods? There has obviously been plenty of time for it (again, think of all the disease immunity we've built up). That's another reason this 'paleolithic' diet might be bunk. You can't really eat the foods hunter/gatherers ate unless you actually hunt and gather. I guarantee no indiginous  Australian has ever eaten a cow or a 3/4 pound ear of corn.
actually, these are very different questions. 1. we haven't really evolved in the past 10,000 years very much. we know that from archeological evidence, and from our undrestanding of evolution and DNA development. 2. do people fare better on agriculturally grown products? very possibly, there had to be a reason why people took up animal herding and farming the way that they did. I believe that that main reason was for stability and the ability to accumulate capital - hunter/gatherer economies are very bad at planning for periods of years, and at accumulating capital, but they probrably gave access to richer sources of nutritian, possibly better tasting products (in the early generations) and more overall calories per person. for 9,000 or more years of the agricultural era, the problems facing man have not been too much food, but too little. 3. although the theory that eating foods that are similar to what we evolved on is good for you makes sense, and I find it very interesting, it could very well be that agricultural foods are even better, or wheat grass, for all I know. 4. your last point is the most compelling - hunter gatherers would spend most of their day running and working hard, and then eat some lean meat, maybe a handful of grubs, and some seeds and nuts. their is a huge diffence between that and grain fed beef and some corn on the cob.

 

[Dakota rube]

Everybody's a comedian around here huh? Well okay then, I'll go back to the jungle and kill a zebra. You go have a donut.

in the words of an immortal "” and former "” member: Lets get back to business. You all have alot to learn about health. l will post better arguments in future.

 

[Stu]

Are they uncooked?  Did they have fire in the paleolithic?  Might need to eat it all raw.  Watch out with the eggs.

Also, are there no sprouts or wheatgrass in your diet?  Maybe you should talk to marc_au, Resident Wheatgrass Gimp.

And wash it down with some vintage mid-stream piss, as per Marc's instructions.

 

[bachbeet]

A paleolithic diet probably also had a LOT of cholesterol in it. This wasn't so much of a problem when life expectancy wasn't much more than 30. But, today, the high cholesterol diet would kill a person at about half of the current life expectancy.

And, the diet advocated by the original poster did not include fish/seafood. I refuse to believe that those paleolithic people who lived near the coasts/rivers didn't eat fish. In fact, I guess we know they did as we can see by the Eskimos who live a life close to the paleolithic model.