Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You => Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach => Topic started by: Sully on July 19, 2008, 06:25:40 am
-
Ones with anti-nutrients and other harmful things.. Make a list someone. I'm not addicted to any food and can whip anything out of my diet that will always have potentially harmful toxins or other things.
Someone make a list please... ;D
-
well, since you're asking...
however, please keep in mind this quote: "Effect on humans and animals is based on laboratory tests using toxin concentrations much higher than the concentrations normally found in food."
I don't believe that all the things on this list are harmful. Obviously the ones that aren't paleo I do, but not things like spinach, tomato, stone fruits, "most fruits", etc...
Toxin family: Examples of occurence in plants: Effects on humans and animals:
Cyanogenic glycosides...Sweet potatoes, stone fruits, lima beans...Gastrointestinal inflammation; inhibition of cellular respiration
Glulcosinolates...Rape (canola), mustard, radish, cabbage, peanut, soybean, onion...Goiter; impaired metabolism; reduced iodine uptake; decreased protein digestion
Glycoalkaloids...Potato, tomato...Depressed central nervous system; kidney inflammation; carcinogenic; birth defects; reduced iron uptake
Gossypol...Cottonseed...Reduced iron uptake; spermicidal; carcinogenic
Lectins...Most cereals, soybeans, other beans, potatoes...Intestinal inflammation; decreased nutrient uptake/absorption
Oxalate...Spinach, rhubarb, tomato...Reduces solubility of calcium, iron, and zinc
Phenols...Most fruits and vegetables, cereals, soybean, potato, tea, coffee...Destroys thiamine; raises cholesterol; estrogen-mimic
Coumarins...Celery, parsley, parsnips, figs...Light-activated carcinogens; skin irritation
-
I did hear about rhubarb before. Thanks for the list. ;)
-
Ones with anti-nutrients and other harmful things.. Make a list someone. I'm not addicted to any food and can whip anything out of my diet that will always have potentially harmful toxins or other things.
Someone make a list please... ;D
Why don't we all make a list together, eh? Keith has a good start. Shall we keep it restricted to commonly agreed to paleo foods? And let's keep anaphylactic responses, unique to rare cases (like strawberry or celery allergy) off the list, shall we?
eggplant - contains nicotinoid alkaloids
-
Why don't we all make a list together, eh? Keith has a good start. Shall we keep it restricted to commonly agreed to paleo foods? And let's keep anaphylactic responses, unique to rare cases (like strawberry or celery allergy) off the list, shall we?
eggplant - contains nicotinoid alkaloids
Darn, I'm low on info... :-[ But I agree no super rare allergy foods. If mentioned make sure you clearly state its harmful only if your allergic.
-
These are taken from the Wai site (i didn't include all the blatantly non-paleo ones). It does say on the website that if you find you can easily digest certain vegetables that you can eat those. Take that for what it's worth I guess.
- Vegetables contain more pentosanes and hexosanes, which are partly bacterially decomposed in the colon, and inhibit digestion. Brussel sprouts, beetroot, parsley, celeriac, kale, broccoli and peas contain most of these special carbohydrates.
- Some vegetables contain much oxalic acid, which binds to minerals easily. Mangold, rhubarb, spinach, purslane, bamboo shoots and beetroot contain most of these special carbohydrates.
- Cabbages (like broccoli and cauliflower), radish and garden cress contain glucosinolates, which can originate mildly toxic (to the thyroid) thiocyanate.
- Onions contain much mutagenic quercetine (a flavonoid), and (like garlic)
dialkyloligosulphides, inhibiting iodide absorption.
- Mushrooms easily absorb damaging cadmium and arsenium, and contain alkaloids which inhibit digestion and cause gripes. Many people have no problem at all eating mushrooms however.
- Lamb's lettuce contains caffeic acid, which easily binds nutrients.
- Rhubarb can contain mutagenic emodine.
- Parsley, celeriac, dill and fennel can contain small amounts of furocoumarines (psoralenes) that can become tumor-stimulating when taken in higher amounts.
- Cacao, nutmeg, laurel, mace, anise, black pepper and ginger can contain tiny amounts of cancerous safrol.
-
All nightshades: tomato, potatoe, eggplant, bell peppers, tobacco
-
I think it would be much easier to list ALL NON-Harmful Plant Products... if there exist any...
-
This is crazy; and to think there are thousands of books out there about how bad meat is for you and how healthy plants are. It just goes to show that people will believe anything, because the issue couldn't be in more diametric opposition than this.
However I still eat plants occasionally, but much less than before. I have a garden where I grow tomatoes, squash, basil, dill, various peppers, carrots and lettuce. Most of it I have been giving away but I've eaten a few tomatoes.
-
This is crazy; and to think there are thousands of books out there about how bad meat is for you and how healthy plants are. It just goes to show that people will believe anything, because the issue couldn't be in more diametric opposition than this.
However I still eat plants occasionally, but much less than before. I have a garden where I grow tomatoes, squash, basil, dill, various peppers, carrots and lettuce. Most of it I have been giving away but I've eaten a few tomatoes.
I guess tomatoes might be one fruit (part of plant that contains the seed) you might not want to eat.
-
Apple (Malus domestica) Seeds contain cyanogenic glycosides; although the amount found in most apples won't kill a person, with enough seeds, one could die from it.
Cherry (Prunus cerasus), as well as other species (Prunus spp) such as peach (Prunus persica), plum (Prunus domestica), almond (Prunus dulcis) and apricot (Prunus armeniaca). Leaves and seeds contain cyanogenic glycosides
Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Foliage and green-tinged tubers are toxic, containing the glycoalkaloid solanine, which develops as a result of exposure to light. Causes intense digestive disturbances, nervous symptoms.
Rhubarb (Rheum rhaponticum) Leaf blades, but not petioles, contain oxalic acid salts, causing kidney disorders, convulsions, coma. Rarely fatal.
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Foliage and vines contain alkaloid poisons which cause digestive upset and nervous excitement
-
Apple (Malus domestica) Seeds contain cyanogenic glycosides; although the amount found in most apples won't kill a person, with enough seeds, one could die from it.
Cherry (Prunus cerasus), as well as other species (Prunus spp) such as peach (Prunus persica), plum (Prunus domestica), almond (Prunus dulcis) and apricot (Prunus armeniaca). Leaves and seeds contain cyanogenic glycosides
Seeds and stones usually are not consumed, though. If something like an apple seed gets swallowed, it becomes encased in manure and spread to a new area where it might sprout. That's just one of the symbiotic ways we plants and animals exist. I'd like to see anyone chew up a peach stone without damaging his mouth.
-
Okay, so most fruits are fine if you don't eat the seed/pit.
Are there ANY plants/vegetables that don't have some kind of toxin or whatever? (although I imagine most of these are on such a low level, that with a good diet it wouldn't matter if you ate it on occasion)
-
I eat salad green leafy stuff and celery.
-
Most fruit are excessively sweet so high levels of fructose could be counted as a poison. A lot of people are allergic to fruit like strawberries and oranges like myself, so there's something poisonous in them which causes the body to react and detox. I know Satya mentioned that fruits which people are allergic to shouldn't be counted in this thread but I think its important to point out that allergies/ anaphylactic reactions happen for a reason. The body doesn't like this plant matter being in the body and removes them as fast as possible.
I always hear people being allergic to non paleo foods such as dairy/ eggs/ peanuts/ wheat/ oranges/ strawberries/ bananas/ fish but I don't hear of people being allergic to paleo foods such as raw beef or raw beef suet.
I can think of an exception to what I stated above, shellfish! I wonder whats in shell fish which causes problems?
-
I've never heard of a Filipino who was allergic to bananas.
Those things grow in tons non-stop in our islands.
Maybe our ancestors lived off of them bananas as staples.
I would be poisoned if I ate those cavendish bananas being factory farmed (pesticides, chemical fertilized) by Dole and Del Monte in the Philippines. These cavendish were recently imported from I don't know where. We natives don't eat these cavendish, cultivated stuff, they look wierd looking so "perfect", and besides, they taste bland, good for the pigs and banana ketchup, but not for filipino human consumption. They do export this stuff to other countries.
These are the bananas you may be talking about. Factory Farmed cavendish bananas are no good.
Latundan bananas are high potassium bananas and has medicinal value. Even hospital doctors in Manila prescribe it instead of drugs.
For people who need carbs, the saba and lakatan variety are higher quality carbs and non-constipating, unlike the cooked starches.
The best bananas, and the best fruits for that matter are tree-ripened, their mineral absorption is complete.
I live in a tropical country and fruits grow all year round, we just go eat with the seasons. Our fruits are not excessively sweet. Their different tastes are a testament to their identity. Fruit is not about being sweet. You must be unfortunate that the fruit you receive in your part of the world are the wrong kinds of fruit.
We must be fair in compairing bad food.
When raw vegans say meat eating is bad, they point to cooked, condimented, factory farmed animals.
When carnivores say fruit eating is bad, they point to factory farmed, non-organic, non-tree ripened fruit.
I'm an omnivore so I just choose the best from all the Raw Paleo Diet has to offer.
The best organic / wild ocean or land animals.
The best tree ripened, organic, wild raw fruit.
The best organic vegetables that can be eaten raw.
-
Hey Edwin,
I'm hearing you for sure!
I'm slightly anti-fruit but as with you, I'm definitely pro organic/grass fed/wild etc
Andrew
-
I can think of an exception to what I stated above, shellfish! I wonder whats in shell fish which causes problems?
I experimented with oysters and green mussels we grow in Cavite province near Manila... very bad, very dirty. When I experimented with them I was prepared. I isolate them in my experiment. 1 full day, just oysters. One full day, just mussels. I came prepared with my powerful colon cleanser and my tree iodine to save me from poisoning.
Yup, both times they made me feel bad. Puked and pooped my troubles away the very night, awful stuff.
That was pollution talking. Grown in polluted waters.
The safe oysters and mussels come from Iloilo and other far away provinces where the water is clean. I eat them shellfish in expensive restaurants where they trust their sources and they proudly have a banner ad that says: Oyster Bar. Helps increase your sperm count. I did lab measurements years ago and my sperm count rose from 100 million / ml to 300 million / ml.
I'm sure Australian and New Zealand waters may be cleaner as well. I have a customer with the website http://www.lyprinolusa.com and they sell supplements from green mussel oil from new zealand. Helps the sick people who are fat deprived. These are in effect FAT SUPPLEMENTS. It is a combination of green mussel oil and extra virgin olive oil.
-
Virus contaminated Oysters from France (Switzerland has import stop)
http://tinyurl.com/576qht
Nicola
-
We must be fair in compairing bad food.
When raw vegans say meat eating is bad, they point to cooked, condimented, factory farmed animals.
When carnivores say fruit eating is bad, they point to factory farmed, non-organic, non-tree ripened fruit.
I'm an omnivore so I just choose the best from all the Raw Paleo Diet has to offer.
The best organic / wild ocean or land animals.
The best tree ripened, organic, wild raw fruit.
The best organic vegetables that can be eaten raw.
Beautifully written, goodsamaritan! Sometimes I feel like it's the carnivores v. the omnivores with everyone claiming their diet best and the other somehow poisonous or wrong. However, there is no orthodox way of eating for every single person! Each of us is experimenting to find what works within our lives. If that means you eat only animals, then fine. If that means that you eat more fruit, then fine. Do what works for you as an individual, because we are unique in many ways.
-
I know Satya mentioned that fruits which people are allergic to shouldn't be counted in this thread but I think its important to point out that allergies/ anaphylactic reactions happen for a reason. The body doesn't like this plant matter being in the body and removes them as fast as possible.
I always hear people being allergic to non paleo foods such as dairy/ eggs/ peanuts/ wheat/ oranges/ strawberries/ bananas/ fish but I don't hear of people being allergic to paleo foods such as raw beef or raw beef suet.
I can think of an exception to what I stated above, shellfish! I wonder whats in shell fish which causes problems?
Andrew, why thank you for bringing these allergies back up. Did you know that the "big eight" food allergies in the US are as follows:
* Milk allergy
* Egg allergy
* Peanut allergy
* Tree nut allergy
* Seafood allergy
* Shellfish allergy
* Soy allergy
* Wheat allergy
These foods account for 90% of all food allergies in my country according to wikipedia food allergy entry.
Do you see that 4 of the 8 are animal foods (3 of the 8 being true paleo animal foods)? Do you see that only 1 of the 8 is a paleo plant food? The fish and shellfish allergies are not an issue of pollution, although pollution can be a problem when eating seafoods. This is a true allergic reaction to the proteins in fish and shellfish.
Thus, it is not accurate to state that plants have toxins and animal foods cause no problems for anyone (not that you stated that, dear Andrew, but it is a theme in this thread). I know a poor soul who cannot eat beef due to reaction to the protein, whereas lamb is fine for her. We are unique individuals with unique needs and desires.
-
Sometimes I feel like it's the carnivores v. the omnivores with everyone claiming their diet best and the other somehow poisonous or wrong.
Alright. How many martial artist carnivores are there? Cuz Kyle's on my omnivore team, and we are gonna whoop some a$$ if we ever really fight over which diet is better. ;D
-
Not sure about eggs and fish being paleo but animal foods don't seem to be nearly as scary as those mutagenic, alkaloid containing, tumor producing evil plants!
Alright. How many martial artist carnivores are there? Cuz Kyle's on my omnivore team, and we are gonna whoop some a$$ if we ever really fight over which diet is better. ;D
...we carnivore's seem to be lover's not fighters!
-
...we carnivore's seem to be lover's not fighters!
Ha ha! We shall fight them with love. :-*
-
Alright. How many martial artist carnivores are there? Cuz Kyle's on my omnivore team, and we are gonna whoop some a$$ if we ever really fight over which diet is better. ;D
There's one here: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/athletic_diet2.html
;)
-
I think some people would argue that fish, shellfish and eggs are not really paleo. At any rate most people in paleolithic times didn't eat much of them; only coastal people or living near a lake affords any fish and catching fish is one of those things that doesn't jump out at you as much as hunting an animal you can see in plain site. And for eggs I would imagine that would be a rare thing to find and eat some eggs.
Basically I'm trying to say just because something wasn't impossible to get at in paleolithic times doesn't mean people actually ate it or much of it.
-
Seeds and stones usually are not consumed, though. If something like an apple seed gets swallowed, it becomes encased in manure and spread to a new area where it might sprout. That's just one of the symbiotic ways we plants and animals exist. I'd like to see anyone chew up a peach stone without damaging his mouth.
Yeah, but most people chew up their almonds which are related to peaches and plums etc.
-
Lets all keep in mind that many fruits and vegetables have been breed to be bigger, sweeter, and more appealing to consumers. Even organic local produce.....
Some examples....
Large & Sweet Apple varieties (wild related variaties are less sweet more tart and smaller)
Huge Orange Carrots (i picked one in the wild and it was small white and the core was very tough to chew)
their are many more examples of "wild vs store/farm"...and the same goes with meats
So I would suggest finding fruits that seemed little changed or tampered with by man over the years. Also as far as what diet is best for you....Go with your genes and experiment wth things...eskimos are of course more adapted to a mainly carnivorous diet (they were short and stocky which helped retain heat in cold enviroments), the kung hunter gatherer tribe of africa however ate much more vegetation (roots, fruits, etc.). (they were tall slim with alot of body surface area which helped them stay cool in the hot enviroment they lived in) So basically humans can adapt to many different levels of meat/plant consumption and enviroments. People ate what edible vegetation and animals they could. But theres probably something that works best for you, mainly plant, 50/50 or mainly carnivorous. Just seek what works for you. You can't make up a diet and say it will work for everyone, human beings are toooo diverse. Nowadays you must experiment to figure out what works for you.
-
I think some people would argue that fish, shellfish and eggs are not really paleo. At any rate most people in paleolithic times didn't eat much of them; only coastal people or living near a lake affords any fish and catching fish is one of those things that doesn't jump out at you as much as hunting an animal you can see in plain site. And for eggs I would imagine that would be a rare thing to find and eat some eggs.
Is there any evidence at all for the claim that seafoods and eggs are not paleolithic? I can admit that eggs are very seasonal, and seafoods somewaht as well. But I think that I could produce evidence that people choose to live coastally for the most part, and that those that do live better than inland folks. And, in fact, if you look at the National Geographic World Atlas, you will see evidence of coastal congregation. And alas, these foods are found available in paleo times, so why would they be shunned?
Read Weston Price's book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration for details on how important seafoods have been to modern hunter-gatherers.
-
Yeah, I mean you gotta think that paleo man stayed near water at all times.
-
It's just more of an intelligence leap to fish than to hunt. Also you can never really know when people figured out that shrimp or oysters (especially) were ok to eat. And how to get them, that they weren't rocks.
Obviously some humans ate seafood, including shellfish, and eggs (both raw and cooked) before the Neolithic Period. I'm just saying that some cultures perhaps didn't, and those that did probably ate less than they did of land animals and started eating seafood and eggs later after they had been hunting land animals for many millenia.
You could make the argument (and it is made) that raw dairy is paleo because some cultures consumed it >10,000 years ago. But obviously most didn't; and again it's also a question of how much. If a Chinese Lord consumes one 50 year old egg a year starting at age 22 and only 5% of the population can afford them with that frequency, does that count? You get where I'm going right?
I would love to see (and DO) research on the subject, but I think we can all agree that although seafood is definitely not a Neolithic invention (for humans to eat) it is definitely LESS paleo than land meat. Same with eggs. Both in terms of when humans started consuming them and how much of their diet those items made.
The Price stuff is very interesting but it doesn't delve into what those people were eating 10,000 years before his visits. And I'm fairly certain even the people themselves don't have records of what their ancestors ate for the most part that long ago.
-
I would love to see (and DO) research on the subject, but I think we can all agree that although seafood is definitely not a Neolithic invention (for humans to eat) it is definitely LESS paleo than land meat. Same with eggs. Both in terms of when humans started consuming them and how much of their diet those items made.
Yes, I can definitely agree on this, although I wouldn't use the term "less paleo", but probably added later on and almost definitely less frequent. Land animals should definitely be the staple.
Of course, there are those that say paleo man ate mostly plants and that meat was an absolute rarity. But these people seem to be the ones attacking the very idea of a paleo diet in the first place.
For me, it's less about an idealistic sense of "our ancestors ate this way, so I'm going to eat this way", but rather what actually works and what actually brings about health, and getting rid of things that diminish health. It just so happens that the paleo lifestyle does that, but additions can be made as well IMO. For instance, I doubt paleo man fermented his food but I believe some of these foods can be rather health giving.
-
Is there any evidence at all for the claim that seafoods and eggs are not paleolithic? I can admit that eggs are very seasonal, and seafoods somewaht as well. But I think that I could produce evidence that people choose to live coastally for the most part, and that those that do live better than inland folks. And, in fact, if you look at the National Geographic World Atlas, you will see evidence of coastal congregation. And alas, these foods are found available in paleo times, so why would they be shunned?
Read Weston Price's book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration for details on how important seafoods have been to modern hunter-gatherers.
Fish have hardly any fat on them and one would die of rabbit hunger without supplementing them with some other animal fat or grain. Even bears usually only eat the fatty skin of salmon. Catching fish also relies on boats,nets, weather etc. Many populations living off fish in tropical coastal communities would not exist in paleo times as they rely heavily on rice. I personally find these warm water fish (raw) tasteless and makes my gums hurt.
-
I really do think that evidence should rule the day, and it is absolutely ludicrous to think that fishing takes more brains than hunting. It's the same thing and many animals do both. It is very difficult to get enough vitamin d and iodine consuming only land animals, especially at higher latitudes for d. Anyone can limit their diet any way they want. But to suppose that paleo peoples didn't exploit plant foods, fish and eggs is just plain false. There has never been any observed hunter-gatherers eating a total carnivorous diet. Not that it isn't doable, or that some past groups did eat that way most of the time. But to try and fit personal food choices to the actual dietary past is dishonest. The vegans do the same thing, and I would rather be honest and base my life on science than guru worship, mysticism or anything like that. That said, we all are unique.
-
*Just noticed this thread and thought I ought to add a couple of points*
First, there is pretty sparse evidence from Palaeolithic times. One can reasonably state that meat-eating was more common than plant-eating, as current evidence in favour of this is in the majority, but there are some concerns re the dating and analysis of some evidence such as ancient hominid bones, so one can't state for certain that palaeos ate zero-carb or omnivorous diets - could even be a mixture of both, depending on the regions etc.
As regards, fish, again there's some controversy. There's the Aquatic Ape theory which states that we gained our intelligence/bigger brains, millions of years ago, from eating huge amounts of raw seafood rich in EFAs. On the other hand, one palaeo guru(Cordain?) claims that seafood-consumption only became a major part of the human diet c.20,000 years ago, with the first evidence of some seafood being eaten occurring c.300,000 years ago. But, again, there's so little evidence from so far back in time, that it's going to take major scientific advances re dating and the finding of fossils, before one can reasonably conclude when seafood was introduced.
I generally use Palaeo-theory only as a guideline, given the lack of data, in general. In my own case, I can only say that I don't thrive as well if I don't include some raw seafood in my diet - just meats/organ-meats and fats for my animal-food didn't work for me, whether on zero-carb or otherwise. On the other hand, I've tried an all-raw-seafood diet and didn't do well on that, either.
-
The shellfish thing I think is self-evident; of course they were around in paleo times but they were obviously less a part of anyone's diet than land animals. Even today if you had a nice piece of land on the coast, several hundred acres, I would imagine just naturally you would hunt more land animals than fish/shellfish because it's more reward per effort and requires less tools.
I don't know of any cultures consuming dairy in paleolithic times myself but it does have a long history in Mongolia (camel dairy) and probably other places. I would not be surprised either way, whether it was consumed pre or post Neolithic, but it seems the possibility is there and hasn't been disproven. That's really the idea here is that saying dairy is absolutely only Neolithic in every civilization requires more burden of proof than saying perhaps it wasn't. I agree though it's more likely that dairy is generally or completely Neolithic.
-
The shellfish thing I think is self-evident; of course they were around in paleo times but they were obviously less a part of anyone's diet than land animals. Even today if you had a nice piece of land on the coast, several hundred acres, I would imagine just naturally you would hunt more land animals than fish/shellfish because it's more reward per effort and requires less tools.
I don't know of any cultures consuming dairy in paleolithic times myself but it does have a long history in Mongolia (camel dairy) and probably other places. I would not be surprised either way, whether it was consumed pre or post Neolithic, but it seems the possibility is there and hasn't been disproven. That's really the idea here is that saying dairy is absolutely only Neolithic in every civilization requires more burden of proof than saying perhaps it wasn't. I agree though it's more likely that dairy is generally or completely Neolithic.
You'd be surprised how much shellfish one can pick up on an isolated beach free of human interference. I believe "wodgina" mentioned how his own local beaches are absolutely covered in them. One should also remember that hunter-gatherers tend to view all sorts of things as food which modern peoples never would(for example, I eat raw limpets when I'm on the Italian coast, but these don't appear on most(if not all) Western menus in restaurants. Granted, though, the migrating herds of bison would have perhaps been easier to deal with.
Another point is that, at least in the Late Palaeolithic, the various peoples had at least rafts and perhaps even boats - otherwise the Australian Aborigines couldn't have reached Australia c.40,000 years ago - AFAIK, there was no land-bridge connecting Australia to Southeast Asia at the time.
As regards dairy, it's been suggested by a few Fallonites et al, that dairy might have been consumed in the Palaeolithic. This seems unlikely as cattle, according to online sources, were only domesticated at around 8,000 BC, well into the Neolithic era. Some have suggested that hunters in Palaeolithic times must have drunk the milk from the udders of slain wild cows(ie female aurochs), but the amounts of milk left in udders after death is very small - indeed, in mammals, milk-production is stimulated via hormones in response to the suckling effect of the relevant infant, so there's no need to store milk in the breast-area.
-
It's true, I collected 0.5 kilo of shellfish meat (weighed when I got home, without shell) in 30 minutes during the local shell fishing season where I live. All I used was a snorkel set and screw driver although I could of done it without a snorkel set and used a rock instead of a screwdriver.
The shellfish are abundant owing to a 6 hour fishing season and strict laws and heavy fines if caught fishing out of season.
-
Do you guys think it's feasible to imagine a coastal paleolithic civilization living on as much seafood as land meat? How seasonal is seafood anyway? And of course this discounts the non-coastal peoples as having significant seafood in their diets as well.
-
For instance, I doubt paleo man fermented his food but I believe some of these foods can be rather health giving.
I'm sure paleo man found fermented fruit. The otjher day I was picking cherries from a tree and I ate a few fermented ones. They actually tasted better.
-
As regards dairy, it's been suggested by a few Fallonites et al, that dairy might have been consumed in the Palaeolithic. This seems unlikely as cattle, according to online sources, were only domesticated at around 8,000 BC, well into the Neolithic era.
What about other animals. I was watching a story on the black plag and they said mongals drank horse milk. Even though that too was into the neolithic period.
-
The only animals domesticated in the Palaeolithic were dogs(c.15,000 BC, 5,000 years into the Palaeolithic era).
*Forgot - sheep and goats were domesticated right at the transition between the Neolithic and the Palaeolithic:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication#Approximate_dates_and_locations_of_original_domestication
Anyway, until the Neolithic came round, one can safely assume that the only dairy drunk was other's milk.
-
Early hominid utilisation of fish resources and implications for seasonality and behaviour
Stewart, KM
Journal of Human Evolution [J. HUM. EVOL.]. Vol. 27, no. 1-3, pp. 229-245. 1994.
While research into the diet and subsistence of early hominids has focussed primarily on medium to large size mammals, modern ethnographic and dietary evidence suggests that other food sources are of equal or greater importance in hunter-gatherer diets, particularly in seasonally stressful times of year. Fish is examined in this paper as an alternative food source for early hominids. Nutritional, ecological and ethnographic evidence indicates that fish would be a seasonally available, nutritious and easy to procure alternative food source for early hominids, particularly during periods when other food sources may be of poor quality. Carnivores and non-human primates rely on fish as a seasonal resource, and archaeological findings also document the importance of fish for Late Pleistocene hominid groups. Fish remains are associated with many early hominid sites, and five sites at Olduvai Gorge are examined here in detail. The patterns of fish exploitation seen in Late Pleistocene archaeological sites are manifested in three of the Olduvai Gorge sites, making a strong, although not absolute, case for early hominid fish procurement. The implications for early hominid behaviour of fish procurement are several, and include timing of the early hominid seasonal round to exploit spawning or stranded fish, and group size larger than the nuclear family unit, with greater social interaction. Further investigation must also be conducted on the possible differences in procurement strategy between the hominid species at FLKNN (Homo habilis) and BK (presumed H. erectus).
_____________________________________________
Oceans, Islands, and Coasts: Current Perspectives on the Role of the Sea in Human Prehistory
Authors: Jon M. Erlandson a; Scott M. Fitzpatrick b
Affiliations:
a Department of Anthropology and Museum of Natural and Cultural History, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA
b Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
DOI: 10.1080/15564890600639504
Published in: The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, Volume 1, Issue 1 July 2006 , pages 5 - 32
Abstract
Archaeological studies of island and coastal societies have advanced significantly over the years. Long marginalized as relatively recent developments, coastal, maritime, and island adaptations are now recognized as having a much longer and more complex history. Consequently, the archaeology of island and coastal societies has become increasingly relevant to a variety of important anthropological and historical topics. In this paper, we discuss some current issues in island and coastal archaeology, including: (1) the antiquity of coastal adaptations and maritime migrations; (2) variations in marine or coastal productivity; (3) the development of specialized maritime technologies and capabilities; (4) underwater archaeology and drowned terrestrial landscapes; (5) cultural responses to insularity, isolation, and circumscription; (6) cultural contacts and historical processes; (7) human impacts and historical ecology in island and coastal ecosystems; and (8.) the conservation and management of island and coastal sites.
____________________________
http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=881004
________________________
The idea that fishing is somehow new is an androcentric remnant of the past.
-
Bad Bad Bananas!
I wondered why bananas made under my chin itchy (a sure sign of an allergy)
Bananas can give you a high dose of histidine and histimine, they also contain pyridoxine glycosides which are B6 blockers.
This was taken from the the website Plant Poisions and Rotten stuff.
http://blog.plantpoisonsandrottenstuff.info/2006/09/24/gone-bananas/
I've also heard that a lot of people have trouble digesting bananas, I know my brother can only eat green bananas.
-
Bad Bad Bananas!
I've also heard that a lot of people have trouble digesting bananas, I know my brother can only eat green bananas.
I would never eat a green banana, oh well, I stopped eating bananas anyway, only eating hand picked vegetation and locally grown foods .
-
The idea that fishing is somehow new is an androcentric remnant of the past.
Considering I'm from a place where there is almost no fishing, I know there are certain things about that I would question, but I can certainly see people at almost any stage of evolution eating fish.
But what does that have to do with the dudes?
I guess this is a little off topic, sorry.
-
Considering I'm from a place where there is almost no fishing, I know there are certain things about that I would question, but I can certainly see people at almost any stage of evolution eating fish.
But what does that have to do with the dudes?
Hi Dan,
Thanks for hitting me up on this very controversial statement.
Bias in science is nothing new. For instance, the dates for anthropogenic fire and language in hominids were originally placed much further back in time, as the idea of descending from lower primates was not very pleasant in the early 20th century (and still causes major discomfort in some people). Also, there is this androcentric notion that women developed rounded hips to attract mates, all the while ignoring the fact that the evolving bigger brain of the growing fetus required a larger space for birth!
The same is true when considering fishing, I believe. Even bears and cats can fish, so it's importance is often downplayed when more macho pursuits such as hunting large game are concerned, especially since for smaller fish and shellfish, not much in the way of technology is required. Or is it? Fish are in another medium; a bear can catch salmon with his claw. Women may well have gathered the shellfish and other tidal dwellers near the shores of oceans, rivers and lakes, originally. Of course, a shore is required for fishing.
I would have to look into that further, but I do know that Weston Price found that even far inland tribes would go to the coast, gather/fish and dry seafoods for the nutrients they contain.
-
Also, there is this androcentric notion that women developed rounded hips to attract mates, all the while ignoring the fact that the evolving bigger brain of the growing fetus required a larger space for birth!
I thought it was that men became attracted to this feature during evolution as women who had it had more healthy offspring. Usually animals are attracted to features that have a purpose, stuff like peacock feathers is not the norm from what I can tell, stuff with just a sexual purpose.
-
Aren't the hips and breasts where a girls omega 3's are stored? I also saw a story where curvy girls were claimed to be more intelligent...sexy and smart!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-493004/Sexy-AND-smart-Why-hourglass-figure-means-brains-beauty.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-493004/Sexy-AND-smart-Why-hourglass-figure-means-brains-beauty.html)
Abdomin fat = Omega 6
Hip fat = omega 3
omega 3's are also stored in mens hips too. I've notice fat moved to my upper body more and away from my stomach and I think Craig mentioned something like this too. Ladies?
-
I thought it was that men became attracted to this feature during evolution as women who had it had more healthy offspring. Usually animals are attracted to features that have a purpose, stuff like peacock feathers is not the norm from what I can tell, stuff with just a sexual purpose.
Right, purpose tends to bring attraction, attraction does not always give purpose. Maybe. What do you think of that statement?
-
Aren't the hips and breasts where a girls omega 3's are stored? I also saw a story where curvy girls were claimed to be more intelligent...sexy and smart!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-493004/Sexy-AND-smart-Why-hourglass-figure-means-brains-beauty.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-493004/Sexy-AND-smart-Why-hourglass-figure-means-brains-beauty.html)
Abdomin fat = Omega 6
Hip fat = omega 3
omega 3's are also stored in mens hips too. I've notice fat moved to my upper body more and away from my stomach and I think Craig mentioned something like this too. Ladies?
Yes, I have read about omega 3 FA being stored in women's hips. The abdominal fat being omega 6, I have not heard about. I have noticed less abdominal fat the last 9 months or so mostly raw all paleo, with increasing animal foods.
-
Right, purpose tends to bring attraction, attraction does not always give purpose. Maybe. What do you think of that statement?
Do you mean that an animal could be randomly attracted to a purposeless feature? I'm sure it's possible but I think that would be around a lot less than purposeful features because there would be no evolutionary reason to keep it around and it would just randomly stay or randomly go.
-
i really dont want to step on toes here (and i must admit i only read the first page of posts), i must admit in the last month i have varied my diet hugely. From 'healthy standard' to 'raw' to 'raw vegan' to 'essenes' to 'paleo' to a combo! So i just want to say that i am very opened minded, maybe too open..
My problem is this.
When it comes to pros of eating veg/fruit, i have 2 main ideas.
1) It totally fits in with paleo ideology/genetics/everything. We as a species have been herbivores for alot longer than carnivores, and although being an omnivore is part of our short term evolution (as far as I can determine) in the same way as cooking 'some' things, i cannot see why people would remove something that would be considered a staple in our 'natural' diet. I must admit that although there are 2 sides to alot of these sorts of arguements, there simply isnt a leg to stand on saying fruit is either bad for you, or saying that one must eat minimal amounts. It defies everything. Science/history/ideology everything.
2) To suggest that certain fruits contain trace amounts of 'dangerous' chemicals is potentially true, but using that as a basis for NOT eating them is simply crazy! Everything contains all sorts of elements, meat included, that if eaten in extreme ammounts would be bad for you. To eliminate tomatoes for example, for this reason, renders me somewhat speachless. To be honest i am somewhat speechless, and its 2am, i think i shall sleep on this and collect my thoughts!
sorry for poor spelling/grammar
In addition I in no way want to upset ANYONE. I am not looking for a fight on ideology or such. I simply want slightly more sound evidence for why people on this site seem to think meat is all good (which it is) but fruit/veg are not staples. OR EVEN DANGEROUS! Maybe i am missing the point? Please let me know.
David
-
Welcome David,
This started off as a list of all harmful plant products. Then, someone asked to keep it to paleo plants. The result was a list of anti-nutrients in paleo plants. Paleo plants don't have enough carbs or anti-nutrients to really be harmful. They contain enough nutrients to counter the anti-nutrients. For instance, high carb foods cause the body to use up vitamin C but berries have more than enough to compensate while grains do not.
Paleo fruits and veggies do fit in with paleo everything but not exclusively. The Inuit and other peoples, especially during winter months practiced a nearly, and sometimes completely carnivorous diet. The choice is totally up to you. We do have an omnivorous section here.
I'm a carnivore but have tried paleo omnivorism. The paleo plants didn't effect me negatively the way Neolithic carbs did. Neither did I see any benefit so I remain a carnivore. I can only speak for myself. There are some here who are much more knowledgeable than I. Perhaps they'll chime in with the facts you seek.
Craig
-
The basic problem with fruit is that, in Palaeo times, it was very difficult, in most parts of the world, to get hold of enough of them, as there was no agriculture at the time at all. Having been in genuinely wild areas, I know that much fruit only appears seasonally for a few weeks each time, and one has to compete against other wild animals. I've gone on mushroom-collecting expeditions in the forests, and the amounts collected weren't comparable to the amounts I would have got via hunting wild animals. So, outside the tropics, minimal-fruit-consumption would have been the norm.
-
hmm, interesting. This is a great rebuttel i think, thank you. You do not however address vegs, or other plant foods. Fruit would be considered a special treat, whereas brasicas, roots, and other plant foods would [potentially be found more in abundance. This of course would vary from place to place. Another thing to consider is that men were the hunters, women the gatherers. In paleo times anyway. And so during this era of critical social development, just because as men we would have undoubtably derived most of our share from meat, the female gathering portion would be just as important. In some parts of this world this ratio would be heavier on the hunter side (places where more meat), in other places more on the gatherer (more plant). I am just outlining again that I personally consider our 'natural' diet to be that of adaptable omnivores.
But this is deviating slightly. I mearly mean to say, I appreciate your answer, only I ask 'what about plants'.
Thanks
-
The trouble with plants is that many contain anti-nutrients. While these are sometimes in small amounts, many plants are very high in antinutrients, such as grains/tubers etc. Even in tropical areas, plants wouldn't have been cultivated in any amounts, so there would have been only a limited supply. While plant-food-consumption went straight up in the Neolithic, it was minimal in Palaeo times - for example, there's 1 study which showed that the Neanderthals ate a diet with only a little plant-matter:-
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2000/06/12/Neanderthals000612.html
-
1) It totally fits in with paleo ideology/genetics/everything. We as a species have been herbivores for alot longer than carnivores, and although being an omnivore is part of our short term evolution (as far as I can determine) in the same way as cooking 'some' things, i cannot see why people would remove something that would be considered a staple in our 'natural' diet. I must admit that although there are 2 sides to alot of these sorts of arguements, there simply isnt a leg to stand on saying fruit is either bad for you, or saying that one must eat minimal amounts. It defies everything. Science/history/ideology everything.
As a species, Homo sapiens sapiens has only existed for around 200,000 or so years. Thus the claim that we were herbivorous at all is simple untrue.
I think the big problem of claiming that plant foods are problematic because so many contain antinutrients (and I really wish people who are going to make blanket statements about toxins and antinutrients would be more specific about what exactly in which foods they are talking about; for example oxidized cholesterol in cooked animal foods, etc) is that it ignores the fact that not one traditional hunter-gatherer society we have examined has ever completely shunned plant foods. It is very simplistic for modern humans in environmentally controlled structures, eating store bought foods, to make all sorts of claims; but I would bet top dollar that not many of you at all have suffered through extended famines where you were desperate enough to eat whatever was edible. Yet that is the overwhelming history of our species: feast and famine cycles. This choice of 0% carbs is just that, a choice.
-
As a species, Homo sapiens sapiens has only existed for around 200,000 or so years. Thus the claim that we were herbivorous at all is simple untrue.
I think the big problem of claiming that plant foods are problematic because so many contain antinutrients (and I really wish people who are going to make blanket statements about toxins and antinutrients would be more specific about what exactly in which foods they are talking about; for example oxidized cholesterol in cooked animal foods, etc) is that it ignores the fact that not one traditional hunter-gatherer society we have examined has ever completely shunned plant foods. It is very simplistic for modern humans in environmentally controlled structures, eating store bought foods, to make all sorts of claims; but I would bet top dollar that not many of you at all have suffered through extended famines where you were desperate enough to eat whatever was edible. Yet that is the overwhelming history of our species: feast and famine cycles. This choice of 0% carbs is just that, a choice.
Now, since I am bored, I thought I would argue with myself. l)
But really, I am finding that a very low carb diet is a very good thing for me, which is between zero and 25 g/day. (And this is with a winter workout schedule of weights, taekwondo training, and/or run/walk most days.) I think hunter-gatherers went for long periods of time without any plant foods. That time is generally called winter; but perhaps certain places in the tropics were carb havens year-round. However, if we go back to Africa and look at the Maasai, who inhabit a tropical region of the globe, we see that they traditionally ate beef, drank blood and milk. Now they eat maize too, thanks to the wonders of agriculture. And really, all we know about are modern hunter-gatherers and their diets. We have no idea about nomadic people of the past, except we only find animal food remnants, not caches of nuts or fruit pits. It's just really difficult to look at all the conditions, but no doubt it was much cooler for most of our recent history. You know, the Paleolithic era; with glaciation, tools, and the die out of all but the modern human species?
Isn't this our most optimal diet? Yeah, have some fruit and veg in season, eat some seaweed (not a plant), eat some herbs. But we don't need these foods, do we? Do we need to go shop for fresh produce which has been shipped via petroleum all over the globe? Do we need to pay $5 a lb. for organic produce that gives us water, fiber, sugar, a bit of vitamin c and some plant toxins all for about 100 kcal? I can get 100% grassfed beef for less money which will provide most everything I need and about 1300 kcal. I am well off - the money is not an issue. It's just this place I have come to which will undoubtedly evolve over time. For example, I used to use both refrigerator crispers for plants - one for fruits, one for veg. Now I share one for both, starting this week. I don't have to buy all this leafy stuff that fills the frig and perishes within a week or so unless I ferment it. It's FREEDOM!
And here endeth the sermon.
-
I wish I could remember exactly, but there is a very healthy group that live in the amazon area, and there staple is a type of yam or sweet potato. Maybe someone has heard of them too? But, somehow eat predominately cooked tubers, they thrive.
-
The most common potentially 'toxic' lectin containing food groups are:
~ grains, especially wheat and wheat germ but also quinoa, rice, buckwheat, oats, rye, barley, millet and corn.
~ legumes (all dried beans, including soy and peanuts),
~ dairy (perhaps more so when cows are feed grains instead of grass, a speculation based on research showing transference of lectins into breast milk and dairy and potentially more harmful in pasteurized, processed milk because of the reduction of SIgA, an immunoglobulin that binds dangerous lectins , Biol Neonate 1991;59(3):121-5 Davin JC et al The high lectin-binding capacity of human secretory IgA protects nonspecifically mucosae against environmental antigens.), NOTE: Only breast milk is good for babies.
~ nightshade (includes potato, tomato, eggplant and pepper).
This is from The Lectin Story (http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html). I had completely forgotten that dairy contains toxic lectins. I have mainly been thinking about nightshades. Many (all?) are American natives. I am starting to react to them on those rare occasions I consume things like tomato and eggplant. Hot pepper I use in such tiny quantity that I may not notice. I think ancestry may be the reason.
-
Bummer cause I love peppers. Since going raw though they don't agree with me very well. I used to be able to eat the spicyest stuff in the world and maybe have a tiny bit of cramps if I went crazy with it, like eating the spicyest stuff a Thai restaurant would make for me, but now if I do that I would be on the toilet for a day or more every few hours with these spicy bowel movements and have cramps the whole time as well.
-
... these spicy bowel movements and have cramps the whole time as well.
Round these parts, we call that "Chile Butt," not to be confused with butts from the country of Chile. I guess I follow the New Mexico spelling of hot pepper.
Other than that, sweet or hot peppers don't bother me too much, but I don't consume them much either. With eggplant (aubergine for our UKers), my tongue gets all prickly and I get red flushes on the face and neck. I bought one organic greenhouse tomato Friday, and got the tongue thingy from that. Oh, and then a nasty cold sore to boot! I think they mess up my immune system. I'll stick with animal foods and seaweed for the most part. But I would hate to lose the ability to eat these foods. But then, maybe they are wreaking such havoc on me after years of consumption, that it's time to listen. I wonder if lacto-fermentation would make a difference.
-
I believe the Keratosis Pilaris on my skin is an immune response. It has improved dramatically since I have gone virtually carb free, but I was still eating lots of eggs and tomatoes which may be why it is still a problem to a degree. I'm going to stop right now and see what happens. Man, I'm essentially down to avocados, a little citrus, meat, and fish.
-
Yeah, eating just meat fat and water I started to lose my ability to handle plant foods or my body chose to go into fight mode immediatley and remove these plant toxins. Usual symtoms involve red face and itchyness. I was suprised that things like banana would do it but alas I already knew deep down that 100% meat/fat water was the way and I've been delaying the move..
On raw paleo with plant food I still had keratosis on the back of my arms, just meat fat water it's gone.
-
So Wodgina,
You only eat meat (and fat from meat) and water? I ask because I was going to continue to eat avocados. Maybe I will eat the rest of the ones I have and then go with just meat, fish, and water. Do you eat cooked meat ever?
-
Round these parts, we call that "Chile Butt," not to be confused with butts from the country of Chile. I guess I follow the New Mexico spelling of hot pepper.
Other than that, sweet or hot peppers don't bother me too much, but I don't consume them much either. With eggplant (aubergine for our UKers), my tongue gets all prickly and I get red flushes on the face and neck. I bought one organic greenhouse tomato Friday, and got the tongue thingy from that. Oh, and then a nasty cold sore to boot! I think they mess up my immune system. I'll stick with animal foods and seaweed for the most part. But I would hate to lose the ability to eat these foods. But then, maybe they are wreaking such havoc on me after years of consumption, that it's time to listen. I wonder if lacto-fermentation would make a difference.
It's hard to give up the pleasure of eating your favorite foods. Sometimes I think "why am I bothering with all this restriction?" like it's not really living. But if I go and eat junk I feel so crappy, and THAT'S not really living either! If I eat a large heavy carb meal I feel bloated for a long time. I can't work out or even be comfortable for at least half a day, sometimes more. And I don't want to eat anything else either, not even RAF's. And when I eat too much spicy it's bad too. One time I made some tom yum goong soup and used dried habanero flakes instead of fresh Thai chilis and it was so f-ing spicy my friends couldn't eat it, so I ate all of theirs and mine. I loved it, it burned my mouth but for some reason I like that, but omg did it do a number on my system. For about 48 hours I was crampy and with the chili butt.