Blog

5

I know this (probably) is a hypothetical question, so I expect some hypothetical answers. Which is good, as long as they are sound.

Would a real hunter gatherer gain significant weight if there is a long period (let's say 10 years) of real food abundance (more food than he can eat and relatively easy to find/catch)?

Of course he eats only the foods that he can hunt and/or gather.

Would his instinct and satiety-hormones protect him? Or would he become a lazy overeater and get obese?

Thanks

(things that probably are related are: set-points and neolithic agents)

flag

9 Answers

3

Can a lazy, overeating hunter hunt successfully? Or who else should feed him?

I guess, he will gain weight to the point that still allows him to hunt - but not more. If he gains more weight, his hunting success will decrease - as will his weight, because he will have less to eat.

link|flag
3

Sgt. John Ordway - May 9, 1805: "The game is getting so plenty and tame in this country that some of the party clubbed them out of their way." From nps.gov

I'd imagine that in such an environment, you could eat a lot without expending a lot of energy. But unless something were to break your metabolic software, I'm not sure you could gain significant weight, because your hormones would tell you "I'm full, stop eating!"

I've eaten 3 lbs. of brisket in one sitting, and it is not easy. It is work, and not particularly pleasant after the first two pounds. There is no way I would even try, if I weren't consciously trying to gain weight.

Is it possible to break your metabolism on a HG diet? I suppose if an individual were genetically predisposed to fructose intolerance, and had abundant access to fruit for most of the year, AND game were abundant, then sure?

link|flag
I agree with Jae. Ive been eating only animal products for about 5 months now, and before that have been paleo for a good long two or so years, and am pretty confident that my hormones and metabolism are pretty good. I never weigh anything and there are times when ill take down maybe 2 lbs of meat and fat in the evening. Other times way less. This never seems to manifest as weight gain. My point is that indeed with a well-functioning metabolism/hormonal setup you can prolly take in a lot more sometimes and lot less sometimes and maintain something close to homeostasis in weight/bodycomp. – ben61820 Oct 11 2010 at 14:13
I also agree with Jae. THere is something about natural foods that you eat when you are hungry but then you get full and stop eating at the appropriate time. Because you feel stuffed! I think for those with healthy metabolisms, you will not get super fat eating natural foods. – Eva Oct 11 2010 at 14:52
3

This statue is known as the Venus of Willendorf. She is a small stone statuette found in Austria and carved at the height of the last ice age some 26,000-24,000. Someone back then gained enough weight to inspire the artist. To many mammoth steaks perhaps :)

alt text

alt text

link|flag
Nice. Evidence always trumps speculation. =) – JJ Oct 11 2010 at 16:33
1 
 They also had pregnancy back then. – Erik Cisler Oct 11 2010 at 16:42
very good post. She definitely does seem to have gained some weight from a presumed slim beginning. Sure its related to pregnancy, but you do always seem to see these images of plenty represented with woman, no? No similar images of men come to mind. Anyone know of some? – ben61820 Oct 11 2010 at 16:55
Pregnancy is certainly a possibility, however I don't know of any modern hunter-gatherer women who look like that when pregnant. It suggests a good food supply. – Matt Oct 11 2010 at 17:03
1 
 the problem is that we don't know how realistic the Venus is. Some speculate that it was an image of goddess or general portrayal of the force of life - so the life giving parts of woman's body were overemphasized. BUT I do think that it was normal, especially for women, to be on the chubby side sometimes, especially with age and pregnancies. – Yoannah_offca Oct 11 2010 at 17:18
show 6 more comments
3

I think there is a difference between the sexes. For women it was normal that they had to be fatter to be fertile and have enough fat to support the pregnancy and breast feeding. And even though breast feeding is said to "suck out" fat from women, I wouldn't be surprised if the women in that period were getting a special care and extra fat pieces of meat, to support them.

We know that the elderly was taken care for as well, which means that it might be that with age they were becoming more passive, spent more time in the camp with the young ones (education!), less moving around. There are picture of elderly HG women and men with rounded figures.

link|flag
1

I would guess that in seasonally abundant times they would put on weight to help them through an impending non-abundant season. With abundance in time frames longer than a year I would guess they'd have more children.

link|flag
The more children is interesting and I've heard this before. If I recall, this is what animals 'do' in times of plenty: more offspring, no obesity. Do you happen to know a paper or refernce to more about this? Thanks Scott! – Pieter D Oct 11 2010 at 19:45
1 
 That's what wild animals do, have more children. Humans might do a bit of that, but they would probably also be doing more art, weaving, inventing, playing, religion, dancing, visiting friends, building new shelters, etc – Eva Oct 12 2010 at 3:29
Good point, Eva. More leisure instead of more eating. – ScottMGS Oct 12 2010 at 5:52
Scott, I found the a little quote that makes the same point as you do: paleohacks.com/questions/2440/… – Pieter D Oct 28 2010 at 18:48
1

I would have say it is not easy. I was eating 3 large meals a day, and I had to force myself to eat one of those meals.

Aproxx around 6000 cals/day for 2-3 months. Around 1500 cals from carbs, the rest from Protein and fat.

In a 3 month time frame I maintained my normal weight of 180-185, other things kicked in however for example.

Over excessive sweating and lots of it.... I MEAN A LOT. So, if there were eating a lot more from Fruit then yes it is possible.

Those 2-3 months were horrid on my metabalism and I can't see too many people willing putting themselfs though, not in a hunter gather type life style.

If I eat non paleo foods I can jump my weight up in no time.

link|flag
1

Matthews answer made me think of these:

alt text alt textalt textalt text alt text

These are Southern African bushmen (although other people also have similar physical properties). It is called 'steatopygia'. It is mostly in women, but also men have it. These women also have very enlarged labia minores (genitals) (you will have to google these pics)

Theories:

1) it is a useful fat accumulation for times of need (like the camels hump)

2) it is the result of sexual selection (like the peacocks tail), not useful for survival (maybe on the contrary), but useful for attracting opposite sex.

Quick search does not seem to say more about diet and seasonal abuncancy of food.

link|flag
From my understand steatopygi is genetic, does not relate to diet at all. Also I believe the first theroy fat/water accumulation is a more fitting reason for it as it generally only happens to people with a African decent. Have humans ever developed anything simple for the attraction of the opposite sex? Survival seems like a more logic course. – Ryan H Oct 12 2010 at 2:13
Interesting. But looks like this is the natural shape of people with this genetics, in times of plenty or in times of not so plenty. I does, however, make for a valid explanation of the venus figures. It also makes me curious what kind of side effects such genetics does or does not have on the person carrying this extra fat. Is the rest of the body adapted to carrying this fat? Or does the person suffere negative side effects. If many side effects, there must have been some kind of natural selection pressure that counteracted them and make it still a preferred genetic state to pass on. – Eva Oct 12 2010 at 3:57
Eva, see this quote from wikipedia: "Paleolithic Venus figurines, sometimes referred to as "steatopygian Venus" figures [...]presenting a remarkable development of the thighs, and even the prolongation of the labia minora, has been used to support this theory.[1] Whether these were intended to be lifelike or exaggeratory, even idealistic, is unclear. However, these figures do not strictly qualify as steatopygian, since they exhibit an angle of approximately 120 degrees between the back and the buttocks, while steatopygia is diagnosed at an angle of about 90 degrees only." – Pieter D Oct 12 2010 at 6:15
Eva, Ryan, of course this is genetic. Eva, what you describe about the side effect could be exactly what they mean with sexuel selection: it takes energy to build it, it is not necessarily survival enhancing, but it, for some reason attracts mates. – Pieter D Oct 12 2010 at 10:52
1

we trie to fix a health role model. based in the greek olympic athletes and go on to the perfect warriar and worker.

Often things change and differs for local changes. so dont mind on every thing. just more report what you experience. try to create a new thing

link|flag
not really sure what you mean oak0y? – Pieter D Feb 23 2011 at 15:56
0

I think it's very likely ancestral people eating this way would put on weight, including fat, especially in women, during times of abundance.

I had my dogs and cat on a 'paleo' biologically appropriate diet many years before I did it for myself, and while keeping them lean and muscular is quite easy with a little thought on my part, they will steadily gain weight eating zero-carb organ, meat, fat, and bone if I feed them too much food total. Activity helps but doesn't solve the problem.

link|flag

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.