Re: Paleo diets

[Guest guest]

What always puzzles me is how we know so much about paleo diet but

nothing about their culture, mating habits, child raising, art, habitat.

Could all be deduced from cave art, I suppose. Perhaps the pictures were

really recipes

Sally

Ross McKay wrote:

> tonio epstein wrote:

>

>

>> [...] I am one of those doing a largely raw paleo diet with

>> raw meat and raw fats, little or no grains, vegetables in

>> season locally, kimchi and kraut the other half+ of the year.

>> [...]

>>

>

> OK, I'm intrigued - which paleo diet was raw, what did it contain, and

> what part of the planet are you talking about? e.g. African rift valley,

> the island of Java, central China, pre- or post-H. sapiens, or perhaps

> somewhere in the Americas or Europe?

>

> I'm intrigued because Homo species have been playing with fire

> (literally) since the time of H. erectus, and we have evolved along with

> the cultural advances our various species have made over time, including

> cooking, fermenting, drying foods, etc. We have similarly evolved with

> the foods around us - the Inuit can deal with a diet heavy on raw meats

> and fats, but I'm not so sure I'd cope so well with it because my

> ancestral stock is more suited to grains and milk products (which are

> unsuitable for Inuit, as it happens!)

>

> Do the paleo diet guides get into any of this, or is it a " one size fits

> all " approach?

> --

> Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia

> " The Rich must live more simply so that the Poor may simply live "

> - Gandhi

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

I don't know enough to answer this authoritatively. However, the diet would be

dependent upon what was available locally, since there were no shopping malls or

farmers markets around or mass transportation if there were. And of course, no

agrarian farming thus no grains or grain based products. Though there are rumors

that there might have been a White Castle hamburger joint somewhere back then.

As for the diet being raw or fired, that would of course depend upon the time,

region, choice and knowledge or availability of fire.

In my case, I have fire but choose not to use it with food most of the time. I

also like to eat some cooked food. I love variety and taste and experimentation.

So, it could be that the 'raw' in raw paleo diet is a modern invention, of

choice.

From my own personal direct experience I find eating meats and fats raw to be

far more beneficial and compatible with my wellbeing than eating them cooked.

There is much empirical evidence to support that for me. Though there are times

when I crave and enjoy some cooked meats, for better or worse.

I lean towards flexibility and trusting my intuition more than any rigid dogma.

Tonio

" Don't believe what you think. "

Paleo diets

tonio epstein wrote:

>[...] I am one of those doing a largely raw paleo diet with

>raw meat and raw fats, little or no grains, vegetables in

>season locally, kimchi and kraut the other half+ of the year.

>[...]

OK, I'm intrigued - which paleo diet was raw, what did it contain, and

what part of the planet are you talking about? e.g. African rift valley,

the island of Java, central China, pre- or post-H. sapiens, or perhaps

somewhere in the Americas or Europe?

I'm intrigued because Homo species have been playing with fire

(literally) since the time of H. erectus, and we have evolved along with

the cultural advances our various species have made over time, including

cooking, fermenting, drying foods, etc. We have similarly evolved with

the foods around us - the Inuit can deal with a diet heavy on raw meats

and fats, but I'm not so sure I'd cope so well with it because my

ancestral stock is more suited to grains and milk products (which are

unsuitable for Inuit, as it happens!)

Do the paleo diet guides get into any of this, or is it a " one size fits

all " approach?

--

Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia

" The Rich must live more simply so that the Poor may simply live "

- Gandhi

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.20/1453 - Release Date: 5/18/2008

9:31 AM

[Guest guest]

HAha I always said the cave art was from the kids drawing on the walls, just

like modern kids do! I can just hear the mom, " Now children, if you don't

stop drawing on the wall, I gonna have to take your charcoal away! Now go on

outside and play with your baby pterodactyl! "

--

Warmest Regards,

Robin Little

child raising, art, habitat.

Could all be deduced from cave art, I suppose. Perhaps the pictures were

really recipes

Sally

[Guest guest]

And from what we know of the paleo diet, it was a lot different

from what people call " a paleo diet " today. For instance,

it was common to eat rats and rabbits, whole and raw,

fur and all (even after the invention of fire: raw bat in

coconut milk is still a delicacy in some parts). Insects were

big too, and probably blood.

It's unlikely that the Paleo folks ate an entirely raw food

diet though. Fire has been around a LONG time, like

Ross said.

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:50 AM, Eva family <bobsallyeva@...> wrote:

> What always puzzles me is how we know so much about paleo diet but

> nothing about their culture, mating habits, child raising, art, habitat.

> Could all be deduced from cave art, I suppose. Perhaps the pictures were

> really recipes

> Sally

>

> Ross McKay wrote:

>> tonio epstein wrote:

>>

>>

>>> [...] I am one of those doing a largely raw paleo diet with

>>> raw meat and raw fats, little or no grains, vegetables in

>>> season locally, kimchi and kraut the other half+ of the year.

>>> [...]

>>>

>>

>> OK, I'm intrigued - which paleo diet was raw, what did it contain, and

>> what part of the planet are you talking about? e.g. African rift valley,

>> the island of Java, central China, pre- or post-H. sapiens, or perhaps

>> somewhere in the Americas or Europe?

>>

>> I'm intrigued because Homo species have been playing with fire

>> (literally) since the time of H. erectus, and we have evolved along with

>> the cultural advances our various species have made over time, including

>> cooking, fermenting, drying foods, etc. We have similarly evolved with

>> the foods around us - the Inuit can deal with a diet heavy on raw meats

>> and fats, but I'm not so sure I'd cope so well with it because my

>> ancestral stock is more suited to grains and milk products (which are

>> unsuitable for Inuit, as it happens!)

>>

>> Do the paleo diet guides get into any of this, or is it a " one size fits

>> all " approach?

>> --

>> Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia

>> " The Rich must live more simply so that the Poor may simply live "

>> - Gandhi

>>

>

[Guest guest]

G'day Tonio,

>I don't know enough to answer this authoritatively. However,

>the diet would be dependent upon what was available locally,

>since there were no shopping malls or farmers markets around

>or mass transportation if there were.

Sounds fair. Not what I've read on some websites, but this approach

sounds more reasonable - for those whose ancestors evolved where they're

getting their local foods from, at least.

>And of course, no agrarian farming thus no grains or grain

>based products. [...]

Hmmm... are you suggesting that early H. sapiens didn't collect grains

from the wild? Wheat and barley and rice have grown wild for a very long

time, and (some) humans evolved alongside those grains.

Corn is a different beastie, of course, but then native Americans (north

and south) must have evolved over time to cope with corn, since they

made it such a mainstay of their food supply. Not to mention other

new-world foods such as potatoes, tomatoes, chilis, squash, zucchini...

>In my case, I have fire but choose not to use it with food most of the

>time. I also like to eat some cooked food. I love variety and taste

>and experimentation. So, it could be that the 'raw' in raw paleo diet

>is a modern invention, of choice.

As per , I suspect that there would have been much variation, and

some things eaten raw while others cooked. Some, in fact, would have

been OK to eat either raw or cooked depending on taste, whilst others

would have needed cooking to be safe (e.g. potatoes, manioc, maybe even

early tomatoes).

>[...]

>I lean towards flexibility and trusting my intuition more than any

>rigid dogma.

I find that to be the best too. Dogma usually leads to trouble

--

Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia

The planet is in a pickle, but fermenting will help save us

[Guest guest]

G'day mate,

Hmmm... are you suggesting that early H. sapiens didn't collect grains

from the wild? Wheat and barley and rice have grown wild for a very long

time, and (some) humans evolved alongside those grains.

Considering human adaptibility and curiousity and needs and probable desperation

at times, I would strongly suspect that early H. sapiens did experiment with

what grains and the like that they came across during their foraging. I can

imagine many sleepless hours of rolling on the ground groaning in pain from

indigestion as they experimented with various new foods in the constant

challenge to find ways to utilize what was available.

Of course, there is an entire branch of science/history based on that. So, yes,

farming had to arise from somewhere, unless one subscribes to the notion that

Monsanto was divinely granted stewardship over the world of grains, seeds and

other foodstuffs for the greater benefit of all humanity.

Tonio

" Governments are useful, like a fire in ones fireplace. But if it gets out it'll

consume everything you own. " ~ Washington (not your average pantywaist

rebel, or conspiracy theorist)

[Guest guest]

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 8:31 PM, tonio epstein <tonio@...> wrote:

> Considering human adaptibility and curiousity and needs and probable

desperation at times, I would strongly suspect that early H. sapiens did

experiment with what grains and the like that they came across during their

foraging. I can imagine many sleepless hours of rolling on the ground groaning

in pain from indigestion as they experimented with various new foods in the

constant challenge to find ways to utilize what was available.

There has in fact been a lot of study on that. It's really difficult to

harvest the wild versions of our modern grains, much less husk

and cook them. They tend to fall off the stem before they are really

ripe, and the seeds were a lot smaller. They probably were eaten,

some, just like everything else (even eating the sweet stuff under

the bark of some trees). Thing is, grass only goes into seed during

a short time of the year, and processing the seed is pretty difficult,

and if you are travelling, lugging around a grindstone and 10 lbs

of wheat berries would be pretty hard, esp. when you have a baby

to lug too.

The thing that makes grain efficient is that you can *store* it,

for years even.

But once you store it, this requires waterproof buildings and

someone to guard it. Presto, you have the beginnings of

civilization.

Anyway, I grew wheat once, in my wheat-eating days, and that

convinced me I never wanted to try it again! Tubers are the way

to go! To get a mess of arrowroot around here, all you have to

do is wade into a lake and grab the roots with your toes, pull

them up. I read once that the aborigines were growing yams

in Australia 50,000 years ago, and the Polynesians had taro.

There are big wild root vegies pretty much all over the world.

Except maybe in the desert countries, which is why they started

with wheat?

There is also one strain of thought that is really on-topic

for this group: grains became popular as a way to make BEER.

In fact that might have been their first use, some people

theorize.

[Guest guest]

tonio epstein wrote:

>Considering human adaptibility and curiousity and needs and

>probable desperation at times, I would strongly suspect that

>early H. sapiens did experiment with what grains and the like

>that they came across during their foraging. I can imagine

>many sleepless hours of rolling on the ground groaning in

>pain from indigestion as they experimented with various new

>foods in the constant challenge to find ways to utilize what

>was available.

This is much as we must have found with many foods. A large part of the

success of H. sapiens is the ability to evolve cultural responses to

environmental challenges, including detoxification of foods through

soaking, fermenting, cooking, and other forms of food processing. Many

of the foods we now use either fresh or cooked were quite toxic in their

native form, without some pre-processing.

To this day, people eat foods that are toxic without proper processing

(e.g. olives) or if eaten in large quantities (e.g. probably half the

" horta " eaten by the highlanders of Crete, much vaunted as having the

world's healthiest lifestyle).

I think that the best approach is to find out what suits your own body

(as you pointed out, " flexibility and trusting my intuition more than

any rigid dogma " ). We are all different, carrying a mix of our different

ancestries and cultural responses.

[Guest guest]

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Ross McKay <rosko@...> wrote:

> tonio epstein wrote:

> Once again, many of these things are toxic in their native form, without

> proper processing; manioc is a prime example of this, but so is the

> potato and the yam. Sweet potatoes are better, I believe. Cultivation

> has helped to remove or greatly reduce the toxins.

A lot of these ARE toxic, but the thing is, none of them

were eaten constantly. There was a lot more variety in the diet,

depending on where one was travelling and what was in

season. They found 5 different types of meat in ONE meal (coprolite),

and hundreds of types of plants in one tribe.

The most telling evidence is in the DNA. It stayed stable

for a very long time, but has changed quite a bit since

the advent of farming. Once we started farming, we

settled on a handful of " farmable " and " storable " plants,

and the toxins in them became problematic enough to

change the DNA. The DNA changes they've identified

have to do with stuff like digesting milk. I'd guess there

are some in there for handling wheat too (wheat gluten

shows toxic activity for 5 out of 6 people: but 1 in 6 seems

to be immune. I'm guessing that 1 in 6 has genes

from the Middle East or southern Europe or some places

in China).

Course there are tribes that eat a lot of cassava, which

is toxic in the native form, but that would almost count

as " farming " in that context. Once you make one starch

your " main " starch and settle down to take care of it,

isn't that a sort of farming? Anyway, yeah, they process

it, and then it's pretty harmless. Wheat gluten can't

really be detoxified, but most cultures ate more barley (easier

to grow) than wheat. Cow milk can easily be detoxified

by culturing it, but again, the genome seems to have changed

for the cultures that drink it, which says something?