View Full Version : Paleo Diet
I met a guy in GSMNP this fall who shared his latest nutrition/hiking menu with our group...basically it is called the "Paleo diet".. when you understand it, it really makes the whole issue of trail food much easier to deal with
"Paleo man" was so easy even a caveman could do it... the Paleo-diet was high in protein (wild game), nuts, berries, roots, whatever Paleo-man could kill or gather while out in the wild. Paleo man was fit, lean and mean. He had to run, jump, leap high and be fast and quick to survive the paleo world.... he did not suffer from high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, and other modern man diseases, which occurred later as man moved into villages and cities, growing crops on farms, where diseases and plagues appeared.
I told this guy that modern man could easily simulate the "Paleo-diet" in our modern society by leaping up onto the McDonalds counter as he eats his Big-Mac.
the Paleo-diet lends itself well to trail food and if followed, by the end of your thru hike you will be lean and mean.
take-a-knee
02-10-2010, 00:29
I met a guy in GSMNP this fall who shared his latest nutrition/hiking menu with our group...basically it is called the "Paleo diet".. when you understand it, it really makes the whole issue of trail food much easier to deal with
"Paleo man" was so easy even a caveman could do it... the Paleo-diet was high in protein (wild game), nuts, berries, roots, whatever Paleo-man could kill or gather while out in the wild. Paleo man was fit, lean and mean. He had to run, jump, leap high and be fast and quick to survive the paleo world.... he did not suffer from high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, and other modern man diseases, which occurred later as man moved into villages and cities, growing crops on farms, where diseases and plagues appeared.
I told this guy that modern man could easily simulate the "Paleo-diet" in our modern society by leaping up onto the McDonalds counter as he eats his Big-Mac.
the Paleo-diet lends itself well to trail food and if followed, by the end of your thru hike you will be lean and mean.
Just how do you propose SPECIFICALLY for a thru hiker to subsist on lean meat and veggies? I already have a pretty good idea how to do it, but I'd really like for you to share yours.
"...he did not suffer from high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, and other modern man diseases"
Neither did I, until I got to be older than the typical lifespan of paleo-man ... :-)
Well, I don't have diabetes, but the others unfortunately, yes.
I do have a paleoman type of plan to deal with the obesity, anyway, which I'll start working on northwards from Amicola state park 16 days from now.
I met a guy in GSMNP this fall who shared his latest nutrition/hiking menu with our group...basically it is called the "Paleo diet".. when you understand it, it really makes the whole issue of trail food much easier to deal with
"Paleo man" was so easy even a caveman could do it... the Paleo-diet was high in protein (wild game), nuts, berries, roots, whatever Paleo-man could kill or gather while out in the wild. Paleo man was fit, lean and mean. He had to run, jump, leap high and be fast and quick to survive the paleo world.... he did not suffer from high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, and other modern man diseases, which occurred later as man moved into villages and cities, growing crops on farms, where diseases and plagues appeared.
I told this guy that modern man could easily simulate the "Paleo-diet" in our modern society by leaping up onto the McDonalds counter as he eats his Big-Mac.
the Paleo-diet lends itself well to trail food and if followed, by the end of your thru hike you will be lean and mean.
Some research says that this is achieved, along with reduced cancer risk, by starving yourself mildly.
take-a-knee
02-10-2010, 11:24
Neither did I, until I got to be older than the typical lifespan of paleo-man ... :-)
Well, I don't have diabetes, but the others unfortunately, yes.
I do have a paleoman type of plan to deal with the obesity, anyway, which I'll start working on northwards from Amicola state park 16 days from now.
And just how old did paleo-man live to be? I really don't think you or anyone else has even the slightest clue.
Anyway, a "paleo-plan" is a hell of a lot different than eating ramen and going for a short walk. I don't agree with everything this guy says, but his results are hard to argue with:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/
Had you rather look like him or the average chubby whiteblazer?
"And just how old did paleo-man live to be? I really don't think you or anyone else has even the slightest clue."
One source (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-expectancy-and-growth-of.html) I quickly found that at least seems to know what it's talking about says:
" Paleolithic skeletons indicated a life expectancy of 35.4 years for men and 30.0 years for women, which includes a high rate of infant mortality. This is consistent with data from the Inuit that I posted (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-and-lifespan-of-inuit.html) a while back (life expectancy excluding infant mortality = 43.5 years). "
One source (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-expectancy-and-growth-of.html) I quickly found that at least seems to know what it's talking about says:
" Paleolithic skeletons indicated a life expectancy of 35.4 years for men and 30.0 years for women, which includes a high rate of infant mortality. This is consistent with data from the Inuit that I posted (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-and-lifespan-of-inuit.html) a while back (life expectancy excluding infant mortality = 43.5 years). "
ESPN..The magazine
take-a-knee
02-10-2010, 21:39
One source (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-expectancy-and-growth-of.html) I quickly found that at least seems to know what it's talking about says:
" Paleolithic skeletons indicated a life expectancy of 35.4 years for men and 30.0 years for women, which includes a high rate of infant mortality. This is consistent with data from the Inuit that I posted (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-and-lifespan-of-inuit.html) a while back (life expectancy excluding infant mortality = 43.5 years). "
Yeah Buddy! Them there anthropological types have never been known to just make shiite up:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/scams/piltdown_man/6.html
file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/HP_ADM%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.png
New York Times had amusing story on this phenomenon last month.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/fashion/10caveman.html?scp=1&sq=paleo%20diet&st=cse
Just how do you propose SPECIFICALLY for a thru hiker to subsist on lean meat and veggies? I already have a pretty good idea how to do it, but I'd really like for you to share yours.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywBwUiq5v4o
The vegetables aren't at all necessary
http://www.dirtycarnivore.com/diet.html
The conclusions about overall health in the articles are kinda interesting.
The article in the NY times, was funny and kind of sad.
While I don't subscribe to the mantras of the neolithic diet faddists, and thus avoid the need for meat lockers and sudden intense workouts to simulate being chased by something hungrier and toothier than I, I have eaten a lower carb, higher veg & protein diet for the last two years.
My version of the neolithic diet controls my blood sugar (I'm a Type II diabetic), has dropped my cholesterol, and improved my HDL/LDL levels quite a bit.
Oh, and sustained walking (i.e. hiking) every day probably simulates the usual neolithic hunter gatherer's day more realistically than these weird workouts.....
Jester2000
02-10-2010, 23:01
“I didn’t want to do some faddish diet that my sister would do,” Mr. Durant said.
Soooo you're doing some faddish diet that you're sister wouldn't do?
I think that the so-called paleos should emulate their ancestors by not going on TV, not selling books, and not running seminars or charging people to train them.
Tuckahoe
02-10-2010, 23:46
Problem is that paleo man would have suffered cyclical periods of starvation and famine.
JustaTouron
02-10-2010, 23:58
I am on the Geico diet, it so easy even a caveman can do it. :banana
I'm just a caveman internet browser. Your world and ways are strange to me. I don't know much about these things you call dieting, or protiens, or omegas,
... but I do know this. Any food that comes more directly from the ground, or off a tree or bush, or that is more recently killed and prepared, preferably by my own hands, is better than the vast majority of stuff I see in your modern world of food factories, supermarkets, and fast food places.
Where I am from, we shoot fast food with faster spear.
Your fast food make you slow. Real fast food make you fast.
... did I forget to mention that I was frozen in the ice. Sorry.
One source (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-expectancy-and-growth-of.html) I quickly found that at least seems to know what it's talking about says:
" Paleolithic skeletons indicated a life expectancy of 35.4 years for men and 30.0 years for women, which includes a high rate of infant mortality. This is consistent with data from the Inuit that I posted (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-and-lifespan-of-inuit.html) a while back (life expectancy excluding infant mortality = 43.5 years). "
High rate of infant mortality.
That is the key phrase in the statistics. Scientists actually believe that "paleo-man" could live to old age as long as he made it past 2 or 3. And that's without our amazing medical technology that just solves the problems we slowly created for ourselves over the long years of human development.
I am on the Geico diet, it so easy even a caveman can do it. :banana
Yep ..Gecko is good... taste like Armadillo :sun
sparky2000
02-11-2010, 08:08
Sounds like the Bear's dieet.
take-a-knee
02-11-2010, 10:34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywBwUiq5v4o
The vegetables aren't at all necessary
http://www.dirtycarnivore.com/diet.html
Eating only meat and fat can invoke an elevated cortisol release in some people (so will continual fasting), you'll get "pie-faced", and you'll get fat. I've read people who follow come of Dr Cordain's prescriptions (Robb Wolf), but they do Paleo-Zone. You body will function better with some high-nutrient complex carbs.
A smarter approach would be to vacuum pack some meals combined of Harmony House dried vegetables and dehydrated ground chuck (or venison if you could get it). Make it "zone" (30/30/40, carbs, protein, fat) You can add olive oil for the fat. A portion of your fat intake being saturated isn't a big deal, IMO. Consuming ALL of your fat in the saturated form is brain dead.
What is "pie-faced?" Round faced?
What is "pie-faced?" Round faced?
Mmmm....pie.
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs037.snc3/12435_199544770020_563440020_4369177_5589493_n.jpg
(No special diet. Regular exercise. Lean meats, whole grains, lots of veggies. A cheat meal or two on weekends. I wish I had a fancy name for it! :D 9-10% body fat. Was 'accused' in an earlier post by RickB of having too much upper body definition for a hiker. Maybe I should be chubby and heavier instead? ;) I do like the cheeseburgers and beer diet when I can...:) )
jnl82381
02-11-2010, 16:34
here is a good explination of Paleo and why people do it. this guy made the video so people would stop asking what it's all about and why he does it.
i do agree that it would be very hard to do this while long distance hiking. short trips would be possible though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M
take-a-knee
02-11-2010, 17:08
What is "pie-faced?" Round faced?
That would be a big fat A$$ for you mainers, to go along with the "pie" face.
Consuming ALL of your fat in the saturated form is brain dead.
So, from the dawn of time until around 1900 what other fats were available for human consumption. Olive oil in the Mediterranean regions but for the vast majority of humans over our long history what were our choices?
I've posted this sort introduction before but if you missed it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4
TWS
That would be a big fat A$$ for you mainers, to go along with the "pie" face.
Are we talkin' large, really large, or "oh my jeezus!":)
Jester2000
02-11-2010, 18:20
here is a good explination of Paleo and why people do it. this guy made the video so people would stop asking what it's all about and why he does it.
How would they find out about his diet unless he told them first?
Olive oil is not the only form of unsaturated fat.
Eggs are 1/3 saturated fat, 2/3 unsaturated fats.
Nuts and seeds, very big in traditional diets, mostly unsaturated fats.
Fish, mostly unsaturated fats if I am not mistaken.
But hey, what do I know? I've been frozen in the ice for 12,000 years.
I totally agree with the spirit of paleo-diets, but I interpret them somewhat differently.
Paleo-man was very opportunistic, as should be neo-paleo-thru-hiker-man.
The spirit of the thing is more "REAL FOOD" and less "PROCESSED FOOD".
Also, meat and produce that is itself more wild, less domesticated, cultivated, hybridized.
Oats would be somewhat more wild than wheat flour, for example. Nuts and seeds would be better. Lately I have been mixing nuts and seeds in with my oats. As for meat and poultry, nothing in a supermarket would even approach wild game. Why? Not lean enough. Wild animals are usually very lean. Of course you can't usually find game meat in a supermarket. Seafood is a safer bet, as long as you avoid farmed fish. Sardines would work, though heavy for backpacking. Neo-paleo-thru-hiker-man could buy the fish, then dry it or smoke it. In some places you might find jerky made from venison, or bison. That would work too. As for fruit, too easy. As for vegetables, carrots were only developed about 100 years ago, from Queen Anne's Lace. Parsnips would be more paleo. You get the idea. Very do-able.
Don't forget bugs and birds and roadkill. lol
jnl82381
02-11-2010, 21:34
How would they find out about his diet unless he told them first?
most likely someone asked him how he stays in such good shape and he said he's on the paleo diet. then they ask him what it's all about. thats jsut a guess though as i'm not hte one who made the video. i spend my free time hiking :)
Jester2000
02-11-2010, 21:42
most likely someone asked him how he stays in such good shape and he said he's on the paleo diet. then they ask him what it's all about. thats jsut a guess though as i'm not hte one who made the video. i spend my free time hiking :)
Gotcha. I come from a planet where the solution to not being bothered by people is to provide less information rather than more.
sasquatch2014
02-11-2010, 22:08
I tried my version of this diet today ate a bunch of meat and then tried to drag my wife off to bed by her Hair!:eek: After she kicked my ass and made me clean up the kitchen I think I will be living pretty meger for the next week or so.:( If I do it again next week she may just kick my ass out of the house and I'll have to go to the Winer Warmer instead.:banana So far the diet seems to be working just right!:D
take-a-knee
02-11-2010, 23:30
Are we talkin' large, really large, or "oh my jeezus!":)
Just ordinary large, bro. Most of you mainers still work for living. I've noticed Maine never makes the papers, like other cold clime denizens, you guys tend to handle what ever comes your way.
take-a-knee
02-11-2010, 23:42
So, from the dawn of time until around 1900 what other fats were available for human consumption. Olive oil in the Mediterranean regions but for the vast majority of humans over our long history what were our choices?
I've posted this sort introduction before but if you missed it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4
TWS
Good stuff Dubs, I still don't buy it, not yet. To start with, feedlot beef has a LOT higher saturated fat than venison (what a caveman would have eaten). I cooked up some ground whitetail deer today. After it was cooked, I drained it in a colander. What drained out was clear, it never got hard, just gelatinous. That is because it is low in saturated fat. Ground beef would have drained out stuff that got crisco hard when it cooled. Also, you can only consume a certain amount of protein at one sitting without the excess being turned to fat. Your body functions best (and I think athletes have proved this) with enough protein to meet your metabolic demand, and enough complex carbs to maintain a healthy insulin response, with the balance in fat. I'm gonna hedge my bets and make the majority of mine monosaturated or unsaturated. You've probably already figured out I'm talking about the Zone Diet. I look at the Paleo principal as addressing food quality, the Zone address hormonal control, without which, you are still screwed.
This youtube video explains the paleo diet really well for those of you who want to learn more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M
(SFW)
I look at the Paleo principal as addressing food quality, the Zone address hormonal control, without which, you are still screwed.
Everyone needs to find what works best for them, as individuals. Not everything works for everyone, so we need to experiment until we arrive at the best choice for us.
Hormonal control by eliminating Omega-6s, adding in Omega-3s and keeping blood sugar/insulin at healthy levels--that's my diet. I do eat the occasional plant matter but it's mostly local and in-season. I know we're supposed to eat 20-30* grams of fiber daily but that is to minimize the damage from the SAD. If you don't eat crap, you shouldn't need to eat things to try and fix the diet problems--you avoid them in the first place. It's not unlike the 'fixes' offered by BigPharma. They don't fix the root cause, only the resulting symptoms.
I've read 5 of those Zone Diet books and even followed that plan for a short while (Omega and Toxic Fat were the best of the bunch, IMO). It lost me with the vegetarian/soy/egg white only aspect of this diet. Then the addition of the Zone-friendly snack bars, pastas and breads made it easier to move on to something more in tune with my goals.
I do still have some Zone fish oil that I take occasionally.
As to the saturated fats in our meat, I try to eat as much pastured protein/fat as I can afford.
I find it here: http://www.eatwild.com/products/index.html
*Starches/carbs=sugar--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCVo8HbDpXI
TWS
Jester2000
02-12-2010, 13:38
I eat like a Paleo man in action if not in actual diet -- I eat anything that moves slower than me and is within range. Which includes, for example, this entire sleeve of Oreos right here.
sasquatch2014
02-12-2010, 13:44
I eat like a Paleo man in action if not in actual diet -- I eat anything that moves slower than me and is within range. Which includes, for example, this entire sleeve of Oreos right here.
I have had difficulty catching pigs to eat but I have found that they often discard their rinds near gas stations.
I eat like a Paleo man in action if not in actual diet -- I eat anything that moves slower than me and is within range. Which includes, for example, this entire sleeve of Oreos right here.
Sounds like my college roommate. He'd get a glass of milk and a package of Oreos. Drop one in, take a sip, drop one in, take a sip--until the milk had been replaced by drowned cookies. Then he'd get a spoon.
Fine eatin' right there, it is!! :)
TWS
Pedaling Fool
06-10-2010, 10:37
There’s a new book coming out Pandora’s Seed, which seems to support the Paleo-diet theory. The author's (Spencer Wells) stance is that Agricultural is what led to the demise of, not only, human health, but also many of the other ills of society. Here’s a little bit of his ideas:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/spencer-wells-at-root-were-still-hunters-1993055.html
I’ll be interested to read this book, but I’m sure I’ll take away something different for the cause(s) of society’s ills.
With respect to diet and nutrition, personally I think all these diets and the way we study nutrition in general is much like looking at a picture from 3 inches away; you’ll get some really good insights at small details, but you’ll never get the big picture.
Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much.
Interesting conversation.
1/3 saturated fat is ok. Eggs are 1/3. Fish is mostly unsaturated. I also tend to that if you have a low percentage of body fat, like 10-12%, you can eat a higher percentage of saturated fats. Avoid hydrogenated fats like the plague.
Danielsen
07-24-2010, 15:36
Funny, I just switched to an approximation of this diet. Partially because I've always thought it made a heck of a lot of sense and many of the athletes I feel the most respect for follow something along the same lines, but also because I need to drastically reduce the sugar in my diet. I don't have any problems with fat, blood pressure, cholesterol and etc. but I have been feeling steadily more like crap ever since being unemployed led me to start loading up on the cheapest foods I could find, most of which had "high-fructose corn syrup) listed as a major ingredient.
Turns out all that sugar feeds Candida bacteria, which normally occur in small amounts in your body, so that they reproduce like crazy and pretty much take over your body's inner ecology. Then I moved into a house with mold, knocking my immune system down a few notches, and all the physical and psychological(!) side effects of Candida overpopulation which had been creeping up on me for a while blew up in my face.
I haven't eaten anything particularly sugary (aside from fruits) in almost a month, and the scary thing is, I no longer even want to. I've also been sleeping outside to avoid the mold (the basement, my former bedroom, was the mold hotspot). Cultivated grains are now limited to occasional pastas and softshells for making wraps. I get hungry, I open the fridge and munch on some greens. And in contrast to the last 10 months of my life, I feel GREAT! :D
I've also started barefoot walking and running, gathering edible wild plants, and resenting the machinations of coercive-participation agricultural society. I'm clearly on the slippery slope towards being a paleo-radical. :p
Also, speaking of healthy fats: Goose oil, anyone? To my knowledge goose is one of the healthiest sources of protein and fats available, even now due to their picky eating habits since they avoid food sources that are heavy in toxins. Now I've just got to figure out how to catch one and get it home for dinner... ;)
Danielsen
07-24-2010, 15:40
Ups, my bad, candida is a fungus rather than bacteria, but the same basic effect. Fortunately I seem to have suffered from more of a systemic infection than the more well-known and less pleasant specific infections we commonly refer to as yeast infections. ;)
Uncle Cranky
07-24-2010, 22:04
I think it would be safe to assume that Paleo-man didn't come down with so many chronic diseases because he didn't live long enough to develop them.
Thomas Hobbes got it about right: "the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".
It should also be noted that living in the modern age of advanced medicine and wonder drugs kind of puts a dent in Hobbes' view of life.
Life expectancy in the US:
1900:
male 46.3
female 48.3
2006:
male 75.1
female 80.2
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Evolution_and_aging_rate
Misconceptions
A popular misconception about life expectancy is that people living beyond the stated age was unusual. One such example can be seen in the In Search of... episode "The Man Who Would Not Die" (About Count of St. Germain) where it is stated "Evidence recently discovered in the British Museum indicates that St. Germain may have well been the long lost third son of Rákóczi born in Transylvania in 1694. If he died in Germany in 1784, he lived 90 years. The average life expectancy in the 18th century was 35 years. Fifty was a ripe old age. Ninety... was forever."
This ignores the fact that life expectancy changes depending on age and the one often presented is the "at birth" number. For example, a Roman Life Expectancy table at the University of Texas shows that at birth the life expectancy was 25 but if one lived to the age of 5 one's life expectancy jumped to 48. Similar papers such as Plymouth Plantation; "Dead at Forty" and Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2004 show dramatic increases in life expectancy after childhood.
Danielsen
07-25-2010, 07:30
I think it would be safe to assume that Paleo-man didn't come down with so many chronic diseases because he didn't live long enough to develop them.
Thomas Hobbes got it about right: "the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".
It should also be noted that living in the modern age of advanced medicine and wonder drugs kind of puts a dent in Hobbes' view of life.
Life expectancy in the US:
1900:
male 46.3
female 48.3
2006:
male 75.1
female 80.2
In anthropology circles (I'm talking the academia here) that Hobbes quote is known as one of the single most misleading concepts ever to enter the mind of the public in regards to our earlier ancestors. It no longer has any credibility or any connection to the conclusions drawn by modern science.
With paleoanthropology only truly blooming in the last few decades, several-hundred-year-old quotes are generally not considered reliable fact-based theses.
Lifespan figures are skewed by infant mortality and the physical dangers of life in that era. Daily life would have put you at regular risk of falling from high places, drowning, eating bad food, or getting eaten by various creatures with bigger claws and teeth than you. If we modern humans with all our medical technology were exposed to the same risks every day our average life expectancy would also drop accordingly.
We know for a fact that many lived into old age based on the fact that we find their remains; one of the most often-cited pieces of evidence that neanderthals were intelligent, caring, social creatures (rather than dumb solitary brutes) is that remains have been found of very old neanderthals who were probably too debilitated by old age to survive on their own, meaning that their social group kept them alive. Not dissimilar to how we take care of our own elderly.
Another interesting tidbit is that remains of humans from immediately after their area switched to an agrarian culture show a much higher rate of chronic disease and nutrient deficiency than their earlier hunter-gatherer ancestors.
Is it really so surprising that eating primarily things other than what we spent millions of years adapting to eating can have a negative effect on one's overall health? Grass-fed cows are healthier (and tastier!) than corn-fed cows. We know that people eating paleo-diets and engaging in paleo-excersize lived to a ripe old age when the dangers of paleo-living didn't take them out first. We know this from finding their ancient often-fossilized remains.
Hobbes is not an authority on the subject. ;)
Appalachian Tater
07-25-2010, 08:55
Activity and exercise is at least as important as diet. Paleolithic man didn't sit behind a desk for 7.5 hours a day or have the television on 8 hours a day. If you out and find or catch all of your food, you're probably going to lose weight.
Vaccines, antibiotics, advances in medical treatment, and even general cleanliness are important, too. Many people don't realize that antibiotics weren't available until penicillin was manufactured in the 1940s so if you got an infection, you either managed to fight it off with your unaided immune system or you died from it. How many people reading this would be dead or at least missing a limb without antibiotics? I'm not sure when vaccination became truly widespread but we are still inventing vaccines against diseases today.
Infant and child mortality is also very important--the longer you live, the longer you are expected to live. You can go to any cemetery from the late 1800s and early 1900s and see that people lived almost as long as they do now--except for all the babies and children who died at rates much higher than they do now. Women also commonly died in childbirth or shortly thereafter.
People in higher socioeconomic classes also live longer on average and people in countries of higher socioeconomic development live longer. We have approximately 40 or 50% higher life expectancy just from being born in the U.S. or Canada instead of Africa (where I believe life expectancy is still actually declining.) Remarkably, just by being born white in the U.S. you have about 9% higher life expectancy vs. being born black!
Pedaling Fool
07-25-2010, 09:07
I generally agree that there are a lot of misconceptions in the whole Life Expectancy thing. However, you can’t argue that people are generally healthier today and are likely to not only live longer, but also live at a healthier standard. (i.e. 50 is now the new 30 or whatever). At the very least more people have the ability to live a healthier life, but many opt to live unhealthy, as opposed to people centuries ago did not always have that choice. And of course medical advancements is a huge factor.
I think nutrition is important, but it’s not something that needs to be "scientifically" engineered to live at our current standards. It’s just that more people have access to good nutritious foods. Whereas, in the past it was more of a crapshoot. Scurvy is a good example of this, use to be a major problem and the fix was simple vitamin C. Many more examples like this and now we know – it’s just common knowledge. So if you want to be healthy you don’t need no special South Beach diet or whatever, just a common sense approach, any thing else is a waste of time and money.
And then you got all the other factors, such as non-health related deaths. This really screws up the numbers and it’s why when people (the media) smear in our face how long other people live compared to us and our "unhealthy" society – I call Bull*****. There is no standard in how we collect these numbers, statistics can be a very misleading enterprise.
Appalachian Tater
07-25-2010, 09:21
I see medical histories of dozens of people every day and I can tell you that people are killing themselves by eating too much and not getting exercise and doing drugs like nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, etc.
The consequences of peoples' behavior, such as obesity, diabetes, lung and heart disease, AIDS, cancer, kidney disease and arthritis and the resulting problems such as blindness and loss of body parts or heart attacks and strokes and just plain miserable, drawn-out deaths are just horrifying.
Here is a good chart showing causes of death in countries at different stages of socioeconomic development:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index.html
Yes, in the poorest countries, diarrhea, tuberculosis, and malaria are still on the top ten list of causes of death.
Danielsen
07-25-2010, 10:36
I generally agree that there are a lot of misconceptions in the whole Life Expectancy thing. However, you can’t argue that people are generally healthier today and are likely to not only live longer, but also live at a healthier standard. (i.e. 50 is now the new 30 or whatever). At the very least more people have the ability to live a healthier life, but many opt to live unhealthy, as opposed to people centuries ago did not always have that choice. And of course medical advancements is a huge factor.
Well, it's worth noting the eras you're comparing. Compared to many earlier agrarian societies, yes, we're doing great health-wise, and doing even better compared to societies around the time of the industrial revolution. But is this because our nutrition has improved (after all, the body can fend for itself pretty well if supplied with what it needs) or because medical advances are helping us cope with the problems caused by diets rich in sugar and grains (which are a product of agriculture, which we spent the last few million years without)?
Obesity is unprecedented. Cancers are more widespread than pretty much ever. A whole host of disorders and diseases and malaises that were pretty much unknown even earlier in this century are becoming continuously more common. Some of this is overdiagnosis, some of this is people being kept alive who wouldn't have survived in the past, but diet is a large part of it. And we have organizations like the WHO making statements about saturated fats and cholesterol and their relationship to health based on very little actual data (and ignoring contradictory data...).
If much of medicine is directed towards addressing the ills caused by incorrect diet, how much healthier could we be if we all ate a more natural diet and let medical science concentrate on infectious diseases and other problems that are not so easily avoided by simply eating right?
Of course, there's a huge industry with a whole lot of money invested in encouraging us to eat the food they make, for better or worse.
Pedaling Fool
07-25-2010, 11:25
Well, it's worth noting the eras you're comparing. Compared to many earlier agrarian societies, yes, we're doing great health-wise, and doing even better compared to societies around the time of the industrial revolution. But is this because our nutrition has improved (after all, the body can fend for itself pretty well if supplied with what it needs) or because medical advances are helping us cope with the problems caused by diets rich in sugar and grains (which are a product of agriculture, which we spent the last few million years without)?
It's a complicated subject of which none of us have the complete picture. And many of the statistics are used to trick us for political/economic gain.
However, just from my perspective there are a lot of people that are healthier at more advance ages and the number of people living past 100 is steadily increasing, especially here in the USA, the same country that people like to make fun of because were relatively low on the "Life Expectancy" list by country (I think close to number 40 on the list), but that's where we get screwed up by statistics.
As for medical advancements, it's a factor, how much who knows, but it's worth noting that these same medical advancements while they may extend life it's not always a quality life, rather a bed-ridden painful life. So all-in-all I tend to think nutrition is a bigger factor.
And we were not without the grains and sugars made available via modern agricultural, just less of it.
Obesity is unprecedented. Cancers are more widespread than pretty much ever. A whole host of disorders and diseases and malaises that were pretty much unknown even earlier in this century are becoming continuously more common. Some of this is overdiagnosis, some of this is people being kept alive who wouldn't have survived in the past, but diet is a large part of it. And we have organizations like the WHO making statements about saturated fats and cholesterol and their relationship to health based on very little actual data (and ignoring contradictory data...).
If much of medicine is directed towards addressing the ills caused by incorrect diet, how much healthier could we be if we all ate a more natural diet and let medical science concentrate on infectious diseases and other problems that are not so easily avoided by simply eating right?
Of course, there's a huge industry with a whole lot of money invested in encouraging us to eat the food they make, for better or worse.
Nutrition nowadays is more a matter of personal choice. Diabetes (type 2) is just one example of disease caused by individuals, not society. Stop blaming society, it's the fault of individuals, period. Don't fall for the media hype.
Danielsen
07-25-2010, 13:29
It's a complicated subject of which none of us have the complete picture. And many of the statistics are used to trick us for political/economic gain.
Sounds similar to what I believe about the way statistics are used to trick us into eating poor diets for political economic gain. :p The health organizations that influence the public's diet are historically rife with questionable motives and bad science.
However, just from my perspective there are a lot of people that are healthier at more advance ages and the number of people living past 100 is steadily increasing, especially here in the USA, the same country that people like to make fun of because were relatively low on the "Life Expectancy" list by country (I think close to number 40 on the list), but that's where we get screwed up by statistics.
But again, if more people at a diet more closely modeled on our natural diets, but with today's lack of ancient life's hazards, how many more would be enjoying this healthy longevity, and with a reduction in cancers and many symptoms of aging (which are based on oxidation, which is encouraged by high-carb diets. Meat is richer in antioxidants than any plant food).
As for medical advancements, it's a factor, how much who knows, but it's worth noting that these same medical advancements while they may extend life it's not always a quality life, rather a bed-ridden painful life. So all-in-all I tend to think nutrition is a bigger factor.
I think we may have a divergence of meaning; you're talking about extended healthy life, where yes, nutrition would be the main factor, whereas I was referring to the statistical increase in length of life, in which quality of life is not considered and I think medical advances are a major factor (along with the elimination of many risks).
And we were not without the grains and sugars made available via modern agricultural, just less of it.
Sorry if you thought I meant we didn't consume ANY grains or sugars. Naturally any omnivorous animal is going to consume some grains and sugars. But it's the proportion that's important. Paleolithic diets contained only a tiny proportion of sugars and grains, consisting primarily of lean, well-fed meats and fish with leafy greens, fruits, nuts, and roots supplementing.
Nutrition nowadays is more a matter of personal choice. Diabetes (type 2) is just one example of disease caused by individuals, not society. Stop blaming society, it's the fault of individuals, period. Don't fall for the media hype.
I am absolutely a believer in personal responsibility, but I also believe in human fallibility. How can the uninformed make informed choices? Keep in mind that humans have a strong need for social bonds, and our popular culture does NOT encourage self-informing. It encourages going with the crowd. Our society has a very strong "do as the marketing tells you" vibe. We're trained from an early age to just ask someone who's a proclaimed "authority" on the subject and take their answer rather than do our own research (hence the common perscription to "consult your doctor" before you do, well, just about anything). In a culture that breeds that sort of attitude, it's to be expected that some people will take advantage of the others, often to the detriment of their health. People get so used to their reinforced norms that when someone comes along and says something different, all too often they get shouted down by what's established. Mass media at its best. :rolleyes: So while I do believe in individual responsibility, I do believe that in this sort of society, those at the top pulling the strings (and tying new strings on daily) do take some responsibility as well, due to both lying and working hard to make sure the majority never become aware of their lie. I am a believer in completely free markets, but I feel that the number one requirement for a functional free market is a well-educated and well-informed populace (after all, it's their choices that will regulate the marketplace). Instead we have a populace that's taught not to value being informed, and as a result the market is deeply unhealthy. As a result the food industry makes a huge profit selling us food that's awful for us. It's not abstract. Just look at how big fast food is. The only time they try to sell us healthier food is when they think it'll help the bottom line, and even then it's more common for the industry to lie and sell us unhealthy food that they claim as good food.
Very few social issues are ever as simple as just people making good choices or bad choices.
So, who's falling for media hype? I don't think you are, but I certainly don't think I am either. Those who don't ask questions are the ones who fall for media hype.
I'm basing my beliefs on proper nutrition off my own research of anthropology and biology and my perusal of the research of others who have spent far more time going further in-depth on these subjects than I. I'm also basing it off what my body tells me after having changed my diet according to that research (as in: I feel great!). I find that the "media hype" I'm exposed to contradicts my findings on a regular basis.
There seems to be alot said for living longer by eating less food.
Hasn't really been tested on primates, but it works for mice and rats and stuff.
So be careful if you are at a party and some of your mates start passing some cheese around.
Pedaling Fool
07-26-2010, 08:40
There seems to be alot said for living longer by eating less food.
Hasn't really been tested on primates, but it works for mice and rats and stuff.
I believe this, just based on my hike. The amount of food intake vs. caloric burn was incredible (very low intake -- high rate of burn). At first the hunger pains were very bothersome, but like all other pain I eventually got to a point where I didn't think about it and was able to concentrate on other things.
Food is so available that we not only eat for hunger, but also boredom. I now know people do think they are hungry when they reach for some more food, but really they are not, just bored or need some emotional fulfilment.
It's amazing how little food the body needs. Just one thing I brought away from my hike. If you're fat it's probably because you need food to feed your boredom or emotional comfort.
That's why I was a fatty before my hike.
Pedaling Fool
08-12-2010, 14:15
It's a complicated subject of which none of us have the complete picture. And many of the statistics are used to trick us for political/economic gain.
However, just from my perspective there are a lot of people that are healthier at more advance ages and the number of people living past 100 is steadily increasing, especially here in the USA, the same country that people like to make fun of because were relatively low on the "Life Expectancy" list by country (I think close to number 40 on the list), but that's where we get screwed up by statistics.
As for medical advancements, it's a factor, how much who knows, but it's worth noting that these same medical advancements while they may extend life it's not always a quality life, rather a bed-ridden painful life. So all-in-all I tend to think nutrition is a bigger factor.
And we were not without the grains and sugars made available via modern agricultural, just less of it.
Nutrition nowadays is more a matter of personal choice. Diabetes (type 2) is just one example of disease caused by individuals, not society. Stop blaming society, it's the fault of individuals, period. Don't fall for the media hype.
Talk about screwed up statistics, the Japanese numbers of centenarians are really screwed up. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/12/ap/health/main6766817.shtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNewsSaturdayEarlyShow+(CBS +News%3A+Saturday+Early+Show)
Missing Centenarians Cause Angst In Aging Japan
As Japan Hunts For Missing Centenarians, Pride In Longevity Turns To Angst Over Aging
(AP) TOKYO (AP) -
Japan prides itself on the world's longest life expectancy but is struggling with a disturbing footnote to that statistic - revelations that hundreds of people listed as its oldest citizens are either long dead or haven't been heard from for decades.
The mystery of the missing centenarians has captured the attention of this rapidly graying nation with reports of scamming relatives and overworked social workers and sad tales of old people, isolated and forgotten, simply slipping out of touch with society.
The story unfolded in late July when police discovered that Sogen Kato, who would have been 111 and was thought to be Tokyo's oldest man, had actually been dead for 32 years, his decayed and partially mummified body still in his home.
Police are investigating his family for possible abandonment and pension fraud.
That discovery led officials around the country to check up on the centenarians in their own districts, and what they found has been shocking.
The woman listed as Tokyo's oldest, Fusa Furuya, born in July 1897, is also missing. Her last registered residence was long ago converted into a vacant lot. In the western city of Kobe alone, officials are trying to track down more than 100 unaccounted-for centenarians, including a woman who, if still alive, would be 125.
That case and three others of 120-plus residents in Kobe are almost certainly examples of lax bookkeeping.
According to the Gerontology Research Group, which tracks individuals of extremely old age, the oldest person is 114-year-old Eugenie Blanchard, a French woman born on Feb. 16, 1896. She became the oldest after Japan's Kama Chinen died in May a week before her 115th birthday.
The confusion over Japan's centenarians has hit a sensitive nerve at a time when a growing number of people are living their last years alone.
Japan has 40,399 people aged 100 or older, according to last year's annual health ministry report marking Respect for the Aged Day, a national holiday on Sept. 21 - though that total now may be a few hundred lower.
"The families who are supposed to be closest to these elderly people don't know where they are and, in many cases, have not even taken the trouble to ask the police to search for them," the Asahi, a major newspaper, said in an editorial. "The situation shows the existence of lonely people who have no family to turn to and whose ties with those around them have been severed."
The Asahi also noted a sinister side to the problem. Unless death notices are filed with authorities, pension payments tend to keep coming, prompting some relatives managing older peoples' finances to keep deaths a secret.
The share of the population aged 65 and older hit a record high of 22.7 percent last year, while that aged 14 and younger has fallen to 13.3 percent - the lowest among 27 countries with more than 40 million people. Japanese women can expect to live 86 years, the longest in the world, and men nearly 80.
The graying of society and the low birth rate have brought an increasing number of social problems, strained government services and pension programs and raised worries about expected labor shortages in the near future.
Crime, alcoholism and suicide among the elderly are rising because of low incomes, unstable employment and poor living conditions.
Before World War II, about 90 percent of older parents lived with their children, a figure that has fallen below 50 percent today, said Katsuya Inoue, professor emeritus of psychology at Tsukuba University.
While that remains higher than in many Western countries, the rapid change has left many older people with few social ties and a porous support network.
"People used to take care of their aging parents. But with rapid changes in lifestyles, the very idea of taking care of one's parents seems to be waning," Inoue said.
The problem is exacerbated by a shortage of nursing homes.
The government has introduced a health insurance system to deal with ballooning medical costs for people over the age of 75, stepped up programs that encourage older citizens to stay active and is gradually extending the retirement age to 65 from 60.
But the recent revelations about the centenarians underscore how easy it can be to fall through the cracks.
Each centenarian receives a letter and a gift from a local government office, usually by mail. Little is done to confirm their circumstances, however.
Fewer than half of the country's 47 prefectures (states) regularly keep track of centenarians in person. Stung by the growing reports of unaccounted-for centenarians, Health and Welfare Minister Akira Nagatsuma has urged officials to find a better way to monitor the elderly.
"Many people have doubts whether the government properly keeps track of senior citizens' whereabouts," he said. "It is important for public offices to check up on them - where and how they are - and follow through all the way."
Nagatsuma suggested face-to-face meetings between local officials and all citizens over 110 years old to prove they are alive and well. Fewer than 100 people are believed to be in that category.
Pedaling Fool
08-19-2010, 09:34
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100811135039.htm
Oldest Evidence of Stone Tool Use and Meat-Eating Among Human Ancestors Discovered: Lucy's Species Butchered Meat
ScienceDaily (Aug. 11, 2010) — The evolutionary stories of the Swiss Army Knife and the Big Mac just got a lot longer. An international team of scientists led by Dr. Zeresenay Alemseged from the California Academy of Sciences has discovered evidence that human ancestors were using stone tools and consuming meat from large mammals nearly a million years earlier than previously documented. While working in the Afar Region of Ethiopia, Alemseged's "Dikika Research Project" team found fossilized bones bearing unambiguous evidence of stone tool use -- cut marks inflicted while carving meat off the bone and percussion marks created while breaking the bones open to extract marrow.
The bones date to roughly 3.4 million years ago and provide the first evidence that Lucy's species, Australopithecus afarensis, used stone tools and consumed meat. The research is reported in the August 12 issue of the journal Nature.
"This discovery dramatically shifts the known timeframe of a game-changing behavior for our ancestors," says Alemseged, Curator of Anthropology at the California Academy of Sciences. "Tool use fundamentally altered the way our early ancestors interacted with nature, allowing them to eat new types of food and exploit new territories. It also led to tool making -- a critical step in our evolutionary path that eventually enabled such advanced technologies as airplanes, MRI machines, and iPhones."
Although the butchered bones may not look like particularly noteworthy fossils to the lay person, Alemseged can hardly contain his excitement when he describes them. "This find will definitely force us to revise our text books on human evolution, since it pushes the evidence for tool use and meat eating in our family back by nearly a million years," he explains. "These developments had a huge impact on the story of humanity."
Until now, the oldest known evidence of butchering with stone tools came from Bouri, Ethiopia, where several cut-marked bones were dated to about 2.5 million years ago. The oldest known stone tools, dated to around the same time, were found at nearby Gona, Ethiopia. Although no hominin fossils were found in direct association with the Gona tools or the Bouri bones, an upper jaw from an early Homo species dated to about 2.4 million years ago was found at nearby Hadar, and most paleoanthropologists believe the tools were made and used only by members of the genus Homo.
The new stone-tool-marked fossil animal bones from Dikika have been dated to approximately 3.4 million years ago and were found just 200 meters away from the site where Alemseged's team discovered "Selam" in 2000. Dubbed "Lucy's Daughter" by the international press, Selam was a young Australopithecus afarensis girl who lived about 3.3 million years ago and represents the most complete skeleton of a human ancestor discovered to date.
"After a decade of studying Selam's remains and searching for additional clues about her life, we can now add a significant new detail to her story," Alemseged notes. "In light of these new finds, it is very likely that Selam carried stone flakes and helped members of her family as they butchered animal remains."
The location and age of the butchered bones from Dikika clearly indicate that a member of the A. afarensis species inflicted the cut marks, since no other hominin lived in this part of Africa at this time. These fossils provide the first direct evidence that this species, which includes such famous individuals as Lucy and Selam, used stone tools.
"Now, when we imagine Lucy walking around the east African landscape looking for food, we can for the first time imagine her with a stone tool in hand and looking for meat," says Dr. Shannon McPherron, archeologist with the Dikika Research Project and research scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig. "With stone tools in hand to quickly pull off flesh and break open bones, animal carcasses would have become a more attractive source of food. This type of behavior sent us down a path that later would lead to two of the defining features of our species -- carnivory and tool manufacture and use."
To determine the age of the butchered bones, project geologist Dr. Jonathan Wynn relied on a very well documented and dated set of volcanic deposits in the Dikika area. These same deposits were previously used to determine Selam's age, and they are well known from nearby Hadar, where Lucy was found. The cut-marked bones at Dikika were sandwiched between volcanic deposits that have been securely dated to 3. 24 and 3.42 million years ago, and they were located much closer to the older sediment. "We can very securely say that the bones were marked by stone tools between 3.42 and 3.24 million years ago, and that within this range, the date is most likely 3.4 million years ago," says Wynn, a geologist at the University of South Florida.
Both of the cut-marked bones discovered at Dikika came from mammals -- one is a rib fragment from a cow-sized mammal, and the other is a femur shaft fragment from a goat-sized mammal. Both bones are marred by cut, scrape, and percussion marks. Microscope and elemental analysis using secondary electron imaging and energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry demonstrated that these marks were created before the bones fossilized, meaning that recent damage can be eliminated as the cause of the marks.
Additionally, the marks were consistent with the morphology of stone-inflicted cuts rather than tooth-inflicted marks. Dr. Hamdallah Bearat from the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona State University determined that one cut-mark even contained a tiny, embedded piece of rock that was likely left behind during the butchering process.
"Most of the marks have features that indicate without doubt that they were inflicted by stone tools," explains Dr. Curtis Marean from the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University, who helped with the mark identifications. "The range of actions that created the marks includes cutting and scraping for the removal of flesh, and percussion on the femur for breaking it to access marrow."
While it is clear that the Australopithecines at Dikika were using sharp-edged stones to carve meat from bones, it is impossible to tell from the marks alone whether they were making their tools or simply finding and using naturally sharp rocks. So far, the research team has not found any flaked stone tools at Dikika from this early time period. This could indicate that the Dikika residents were simply opportunistic about finding and using sharp-edged stones. However, the sedimentary environment at the site suggests another potential explanation.
"For the most part, the only stones we see coming from these ancient sediments at Dikika are pebbles too small for making tools," says McPherron. "The hominins at this site probably carried their stone tools with them from better raw material sources elsewhere. One of our goals is to go back and see if we can find these locations, and look for evidence that at this early date they were actually making, not just using, stone tools."
Regardless of whether or not Selam and her relatives were making their own tools, the fact that they were using them to access nutritious meat and marrow from large mammals would have had wide-ranging implications for A. afarensis both physically and behaviorally.
"We now have a greater understanding of the selective forces that were responsible for shaping the early phases of human history," says Alemseged. "Once our ancestors started using stone tools to help them scavenge from large carcasses, they opened themselves up to risky competition with other carnivores, which would likely have required them to engage in an unprecedented level of teamwork."
While many questions remain about the history of tool use, tool making, and related dietary changes among human ancestors, this discovery adds a rich new chapter to the story -- a story that is deeply relevant to what makes us unique as a species.
This research was conducted under the auspices of the Ethiopian Authority for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage / Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Financial support for the 2009 field and laboratory work was provided by the California Academy of Sciences. Travel expenses for D.G., S.P.M., D.N.R. and J.G.W. were covered by their respective institutions.
There seems to be alot said for living longer by eating less food.
Hasn't really been tested on primates, but it works for mice and rats and stuff.
Or eating less protein?
It turns out that keeping mTOR down-regulated–by limiting protein intake to what is simply necessary for maintenance–is actually part of the key to maximizing our internal repair and regeneration, immune function–enhancing longevity, anti-aging and minimizing the risk of cancer. Coupled with maintaining low insulin levels, keeping the mTOR pathway largely down-regulated helps keep deterioration and disease at bay and helps keep us young. Ironically, dietary fat has no negative influence here.http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/blog/?p=295
Danielsen
08-19-2010, 13:22
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100811135039.htm
Oldest Evidence of Stone Tool Use and Meat-Eating Among Human Ancestors Discovered: Lucy's Species Butchered Meat
I'm a little suspicious of claims that stone tool use and meat-eating necessarily coincided. Sure, stone tools allow you to get to the meat more efficiently and more often, but I suspect pre-stone-tool hominids were eating meat whenever they got the chance as well. Chimps hunt when prey is available, and they kill and butcher their prey (often smaller monkey species) with their hands and teeth.
Or eating less protein?
http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/blog/?p=295
Based on the article you quote, calorie restriction and reducing insulin ( (best accomplished by cutting sugar, grains, and most other high-calorie carbohydrates) are still the most important mechanisms. The suggestion made in the article is that protein should be limited to what's necessary for maintenence (or growth, if desired) which is of course based on activity type and level. Further, it's suggested that for satisfaction of your appetite should be achieved by replacing that protein you're not eating with dietary fat (mostly animal), which I also agree with.
Intermittent fasting, done correctly, is a highly effective method for both healthy calorie restriction and promotion of healthy hormone regulation. Many paleo proponents prefer to do their high-intensity workouts fasted and I myself prefer to do my long mid-intensity bike rides (like this morning) fasted, eating an hour or so after the workout is completed: HGH, essential for growth and repair, is more easily secreted in a fasted state, while insulin is downregulated. If this sort of thing interests you, you may want to read up on it a bit more. Plenty of material out there. It may also be a good practice for the trail (you might be able to carry less food and feel just as good, for one). I think I'll have to experiment with hiking fasted before I hit the actual trail.