Blog

5

Current paleo diet serves large quantities of animal protein and fat every day on the assumption that we have been successful hunters long enough to adapt to the "steak every day". Is there some scientific evidence showing that we need and are capable of digesting that amount of meat with no negative health effects? Or should our animal food consumption be more modest, limited to couple of insects every day and fish or fowl once a week after a good deal of physical activity? Pig or cow once a year preceeded or followed by an extended period of fasting? Are we overfeeding ourselves with meat?

Specifically asking after seeing couple of anti meat pro vegan science supported videos from nutritionfacts.org e.g. nutritionfacts.org/video/uprooting-the-leading-causes-of-death/

alt text

flag
BTW i cant be arsed watching the video, but am curious. Are they saying meat is the leading cause of death? – Jamie Jul 28 at 6:02
1 
Jamie, basically yes. Mostly using epidemiological surveys, which as we all know is the best type of study that there is. Also correlation is causation. Oh and vitamin B12 isn't an essential nutrient. Yay, go vegan! – Mscott Jul 28 at 7:23
2 
Is animals red for eating red meat? Or for eating blood sausage? Either way it's making me hungry. The 50:50 ratio depicted doesn't look too bad. But no, I won't be watching the video. I didn't evolve to wear hemp. – thhq Jul 28 at 14:38
God forbid we watch videos containing the opinions of people we disagree with us, dialetic is the worst of the Neolithic poisons. – Dualhammers Jul 30 at 2:55

7 Answers

6

Based on the archeological evidence, id say quite alot of meat. They didn't paint pictures of cucumbers on their walls, and there are so many bones you could make a castle.

However, I dont think they would have eaten large game everyday, based on what I have heard speculated, and much of evidence of traps, id suggest that the majority of meat was small mammals, birds and fish. Those are more reliable than large game hunts, even though the return is less, you wouldnt want to starve pinning all your hopes on something so difficult.

As for only eating animals after activity??... We should be more active in general. But fish and birds dont take alot of energy to catch. More thinking and effort. You set a dozen or so traps across the bush, you'll get something each day of trap re-setting 8 times out of 10.

They certainly wouldnt have eaten beef everyday. They would have eaten a large variety of meats, with probably little resemblance to cows.

Having watched a few docos now about the stone age, and really thought about it more, I cant beleive anyone is anti-meat. It makes no sense, given we have clearly survived on it as our staple since our inception, and most hunter gatherers still do. We didnt make spears and bows and arrows to hunt potatoes!

Perhaps meat is unhealthy in the context of grain fed animals, vegetable oils, and a sea of acellular processed grain carbohydrates? Maybe even beef isnt the idea meat for us to eat? (I dont really eat it myself). IDK, all i know is that humans are supposed to eat lots of meat and also plenty of veg.. I cant see how that could be untrue if its been a central part of our diet for so long.

There may well be some wisdom in one idea- the occasional meat free meal, or low meat meal.

The large game hunt was very unreliable. Sometimes the small game traps would come up empty. If one didnt live on the coast, there would be no shellfish to gather. That only leaves bugs for "meat", which arent often too palatable, and veg.

The occasional meat low meal, or fat low meal is not out of the question evolution wise IMO.

link|flag
1 
At Catalhoyuk there are bones and grain everywhere. Before 9000 BC, probably more bones. – thhq Jul 28 at 14:41
Not all our ancestors lived in caves. Also not all the symbols painted necessarily implied abundance of what was depicted - on the contrary they may have painted because of its rarity. – meta Jul 29 at 1:52
In the French caves they didn't paint the animals unattractively, so they appear to be something. Catalhoyuk shows a reverence for the auroch, with the giant skulls plastered, painted and prominently displayed in the houses. Hunting of aurochs is depicted, and involves many hunters. A lot of the bones are from smaller sheep and goats, which had already been domesticated. – thhq Jul 29 at 3:06
How far back does the archeological evidence need to go to confirm that we have evolved and adapted to eat meat? We all agree that the archeological evidence on grains from 10000 years ago is not old enough, how far back we accept for meat? Does the presence of archeological evidence mean the animal proteing and fat was an easy food to get and survive until offspring is raised or does it also confirm that large quantities of meat are optimal for health and longevity? – matthew Jul 29 at 4:29
2

Based on the archeological evidence, id say quite alot of meat. They didn't paint pictures of cucumbers on their walls, and there are so many bones you could make a castle.

I really hope future archaeologists are not going to make any assumptions about current nutrition based on modern work of art. Because there is something else we eat besides little green circles and blue triangles.

Why guess when you can read about modern hunter-gatherers?

Most tribes are over-researched by anthropologists. There are books/articles on what they eat and how they prepare it. They eat whatever they can hunt/fish and gather - whatever is found in their environment. They eat some protein each day, depending on what they kill/catch. I doubt they go a day without protein. But a lot of meat? It depends on a tribe and still I highly doubt it.

If you think that Paleo is meat, meat and nothing but meat - no, that's not Paleo, that's close to Inuit. And even then it would be fat, fish, blubber, meat, berries, bulbs, etc.

link|flag
1 
"If you think that Paleo is meat, meat and nothing but meat - no, that's not Paleo, that's close to Inuit." - I dont. As for modern hunter gatherers, if they lived in areas we evolved, AND they were nomadic and not settled AND they used only simple processing, then id be very interested in how that relates to our dietary evolution. – Jamie Jul 28 at 7:51
Some of them do live in areas we evolved (Africa) and they are still hunter-gatherers. books.google.ru/… – VB Jul 28 at 7:54
The comparison of ancient are with modern art is a bit poor. Paleo man was animist, they beleived in sympathic magic. Their art was done in a sacred manner. Our art is generally not. I infer the importance of animals however more from the prevelance of bones, and shells found than simply their art. Theres really no doubt they ate alot of animals IMO (and also plants) – Jamie Jul 28 at 7:56
1 
I had breifly read about some huntergatherers living in eastern africa. Heres the article I was reading: answers.com/topic/…. Its definately more meat than the standard american diet, but possibly not as much as some eat on paleo. – Jamie Jul 28 at 8:02
The estimate given is "Protein 25-30%, Carbohydrate 30-35%, Fat 40-45%". "About 55 percent of nutrients would have come from animal and fish sources, while about 45 percent, on average, would have been of vegetable origin." A fair bit more protein and fat than the standard diet, but a little less than the standard "low carb paleo". – Jamie Jul 28 at 8:16
show 20 more comments
2

This is a very important question.

The prevailing view in the paleo community appears to be that animal products should be the predominant food in the paleo diet.

If we consider the variation in geography and climate where our ancestors existed we would find a similar variation of plant and animal life and subsequently in the availability of plant to animal food.

Given that calories were not as easily obtained those days, one can consider the effort in terms of economics - how many calories would have to be invested in order to obtain the next parcel of calories? Was it easier to obtain plant or animal food?

It is likely that the further from the equator our ancestors lived, the greater the dependance on animals for food.

The reality is that paleo may not be a single type of diet but composed of a subset of diets with an emphasis either on a) mainly plants, b) a balance of plants and animals or c) mainly animal products.

Determining ones paleo sub-type may be a matter of considering genetic ancestry and APOe gene status.

link|flag
2

I seriously doubt we evolved eating cooked meat 3 times a day. I'm sure meat consumption was more periodic. It takes years to deplete our b12 stores which might suggest we had meat free periods during out evolution.

link|flag
0

I've seen studies that discuss the fact that we humans can survive exclusively on proteins and animal fats, based on the fact that our bodies can produce approximately 150g of glucose per day to fuel the parts of the brain that cannot function with ketone bodies.

Also, another anecdotal story of a man with a colostomy bag discussed how meat was the only food he ate that did not have partially un-digested chunks left over (gross I know)

I know I eat a VLC paleo diet and my blood work, mood, and general well being have greatly improved.

www.jbprimal.com

link|flag
survive perhaps, but what is optimal for a healthy adult? – matthew Jul 28 at 18:43
1 
VLC isn't an ancestral diet. VLC is Atkins on amphetamines, an innovation even newer than a vegan's hemp sandals. – thhq Jul 28 at 18:57
Though VLC is a bit older than leptin reset, which dates from an recent landing by aliens. – thhq Jul 28 at 18:59
Well, IDK about VLC not being an ancestral diet. If you consider physiological insulin resistance as a phenomena, and ketosis, its pretty clear we adapted to a low carb diet during the ice age. We probably drank a little blood tho. How adapted is another matter, but clearly some evolutionary pressures favoured genes which could at least survive on VLC. Its likely insulin resistance in general has some connection to this. – Jamie Jul 29 at 23:41
1 
Like you say we can survive on VLC. If we have to. For me it's enough that we've always eaten meat when we could get it. – thhq Jul 30 at 2:42
0

What's more dangerous animal meat or GMO crops? Lol at vegan propoganda.

link|flag
A little vegan goes a long way to sustainability. – meta Sep 22 at 6:11
0

http://jackkruse.com/brain-gut-5-paradigm-drifts-paradigm-shifts-epi-paleo/

link|flag
"Not only does diet induce immediate changes in DNA activation but it changes its genomic expression by altering the organism’s hormonal status to change the genomic body plan. This is how epigenetics controlled the growth of the human brain, spine, gut, and hind limbs." ?? ... Epigenetic modifications do not mediate evolution. Genetic changes do. – meta Jul 31 at 9:11

Your Answer

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