The Paleo Diet

[Aurora]

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/

What does everyone think of this idea?

Ive had a look around the site and i think they may be on to something.



btw if this is in the wrong section please move it,thanks.

[Dimentio]

Primmie propaganda for teh win :D :D :D

[Vanguard1917]

Why this fixation with cave life? First 'socialistfuture' (who is considering moving to a 'cave house') and now 'Anarion', telling us about the virtues of a caveman diet.

[Dimentio]

Actually, I think it is the gals. Primmie guys use to look quite ugly, but they always seem to have the nicest girlfriends by some strange reason. Primmie girls generally look good, even if they have insects dwelling in their clothes. ;)

[Aurora]

Right <_<

If you&#39;d had a look at the site it even says that this diet isnt sustainable for the present population of the world,what im interested in is its posible benefits for athletes and such.


and now &#39;Anarion&#39;, telling us about the virtues of a caveman diet.
Ya i know like,what kind of fuckin primmie loser tries to find the reason we have diseases our ancesters never had :rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:01 pm

and now &#39;Anarion&#39;, telling us about the virtues of a caveman diet.
Ya i know like,what kind of fuckin primmie loser tries to find the reason we have diseases our ancesters never had :rolleyes:
That&#39;s excellent. Just bear in mind that the life expectancy of our caveman ancestors was less than half the world life expectancy today, and half of all their kids died before reaching the age of 1. In other words, from the perspective of today, life was pretty shitty back then.

Today, those lucky enough to live in modern society are living longer and healthier lives than ever before. This is empirical fact.

[Aurora]

That&#39;s excellent. Just bear in mind that the life expectancy of our caveman ancestors was less than half the world life expectancy today, and half of all their kids died before reaching the age of 1. In other words, from the perspective of today, life was pretty shitty back then.
Maybe just maybe thats because they didnt have proper clothing,shelter,medicine etc

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:55 pm

That&#39;s excellent. Just bear in mind that the life expectancy of our caveman ancestors was less than half the world life expectancy today, and half of all their kids died before reaching the age of 1. In other words, from the perspective of today, life was pretty shitty back then.
Maybe just maybe thats because they didnt have proper clothing,shelter,medicine etc

As well as adequate nutrition.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The idea that that our paleolithic ancestors somehow had better nutrition than us is ridiculous. If there was a bad winter, they didn&#39;t even have a store of food to fall back on like their farmer descendants, they just starved.


Originally posted by The site
Ten thousand years ago the Agricultural Revolution was the beginning of a drastic change in the human diet that continues to this day. Today more than 70% of our dietary calories come from foods that our Paleolithic (Stone Age) ancestors rarely, if ever, ate. The result is epidemic levels of cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis, gastrointestinal disease, acne, and more.

Oh dear, where do I begin. Firstly, the reason we in the more well-off parts of the world suffer from diseases caused by our diet is because we eat too much food, not because we are eating the wrong type. Our prehistoric forebears simply didn&#39;t have enough food around for them to eat themselves to death with.

Having said that, most diseases caused by overeating affect one later in life, whereas illnesses caused by under-nutrition tend to be more immediate and fatal.

[socialistfuture]

starving like people in africa, palestine, asia and elsewhere?

pests are still here.
you havent grown food before have you?

[MarxSchmarx]

You call that a paleo diet?

Here is a real paleodiet:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070704/ap_on_...nosaur_medicine (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070704/ap_on_fe_st/china_dinosaur_medicine)

bon appétit. :Þ

[Not entirely illiterate]

To me, it seems you guys you dismissed the concept out the window without even giving it a thorough look. "Primitivist rubbish", and then it went out the window. Please note I am not saying this because I support it myself; I am a vegan and quite happy with things that way. I just find that attitude somewhat... unfriendly.


If there was a bad winter, they didn&#39;t even have a store of food to fall back on like their farmer descendants, they just starved.

That doesn&#39;t have anything to do with nutrition, now does it? It goes without saying that a nomadic lifestyle of hunter-gatherers will have a harder time storing food than those with permanent settlements. Then, on the other hand, hunter-gatherers have the virtue of having a far easier time surviving bad weather than an agrarian society. Failed crops is a disaster for a farming community, and several failed crops in a row will result in starvation. Hunter-gatherers will always have a hard time, and their lifestyle cannot support nearly as many people, but they can survive hardships that farmers cannot. The nomadic lifestyle still lives on in many inhospitable parts of the world today, simple because they can endure conditions that farmers couldn&#39;t.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Firstly, the reason we in the more well-off parts of the world suffer from diseases caused by our diet is because we eat too much food, not because we are eating the wrong type.

Can you back this up?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by socialistfuture+--> (socialistfuture)starving like people in africa, palestine, asia and elsewhere?[/b]

Yes, unfortunately people in today&#39;s world still starve. What is your point?


pests are still here.

And they are being dealt, in various ways. Again, what is your point?


you havent grown food before have you?

So what if I haven&#39;t? Have you anything to offer other than tautologies and tangential questions?


Originally posted by Not entirely [email protected]
To me, it seems you guys you dismissed the concept out the window without even giving it a thorough look. "Primitivist rubbish", and then it went out the window.

This is because it doesn&#39;t matter where one&#39;s nutrition comes from, as long as one gets what one needs.


Please note I am not saying this because I support it myself; I am a vegan and quite happy with things that way. I just find that attitude somewhat... unfriendly.

It&#39;s called being critical, and not mindlessly swallowing the advice of someone flogging diet books.


That doesn&#39;t have anything to do with nutrition, now does it? It goes without saying that a nomadic lifestyle of hunter-gatherers will have a harder time storing food than those with permanent settlements. Then, on the other hand, hunter-gatherers have the virtue of having a far easier time surviving bad weather than an agrarian society. Failed crops is a disaster for a farming community, and several failed crops in a row will result in starvation. Hunter-gatherers will always have a hard time, and their lifestyle cannot support nearly as many people, but they can survive hardships that farmers cannot.

There are more natural; disaster than failed crops - hurricanes, droughts and similar affect all kinds of societies, agrarian or otherwise. It&#39;s just that societies without an agricultural base will have an incredibly hard time feeding themselves after such disasters, having to range far and wide in order to fill their bellies.

Starvation has everything to do with nutrition.


The nomadic lifestyle still lives on in many inhospitable parts of the world today, simple because they can endure conditions that farmers couldn&#39;t.

Only because they&#39;ve been pushed there, unable to compete with agrarian societies. And notice the incredibly low population densities needed in order not to overwhelm the local environment.


NWOG
Can you back this up?

Most post-industrial lifestyles are amazingly sedentary compared to our forebears, yet we still eat amounts of food more appropriate for active lifestyles.

[Not entirely illiterate]

This is because it doesn&#39;t matter where one&#39;s nutrition comes from, as long as one gets what one needs.

This is true, to a certain extent. Providing necessary nutrition to the populace is of course a good thing (I personally believe that most human needs can be overcome, but I won&#39;t go into that), but there are more or less efficient ways to do so in terms of resources. Even efficient ways of attaining nutrients, such as industrial-scale agriculture, can be harmful as it puts an unnatural strain upon the environment. Do you then consider such things as organically grown products, which generally yield a lesser output than industrial growth using chemical pesticides, to be a completely pointless project?


Starvation has everything to do with nutrition.

True, although what was mentioned was not starvation in itself, but rather the causes of starvation, which are more of a logistic nature.


There are more natural; disaster than failed crops - hurricanes, droughts and similar affect all kinds of societies, agrarian or otherwise. It&#39;s just that societies without an agricultural base will have an incredibly hard time feeding themselves after such disasters, having to range far and wide in order to fill their bellies.

Crops usually fail because of natural disasters (or man-made ones, for that matter), and while they do indeed affect both an agrarian and a nomadic society, the agrarian society has no protection against it, except a buffer created by storage of goods. If this fails, people are generally forced to abandon their homes, thus turning into a nomadic society (even if only a temporary one). Where an agrarian society fails to support itself during hardships, a nomadic society can. Not a very comfortable way of life, of course, but a durable one.


Only because they&#39;ve been pushed there, unable to compete with agrarian societies. And notice the incredibly low population densities needed in order not to overwhelm the local environment.

I would guess that most nomadic cultures today still adhere to their way of life for traditional reasons, and not because they are forced to. For instance, the few remaining nomadic groups in Inner Mongolia could choose to abandon their life and migrate to the cities. They choose not to, because if they do, the way of life their people has pursued for thousands of years is gone. There is thus something more to it than simply the question of which lifestyle provides the best standards.