Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

3

Are there any records of the weights of healthy hunter gatherers that are left in today's world (or the past 100 years or so) relative to their heights? I suspect maybe the Weston A. Price foundation probably has something along those lines somewhere but couldn't find anything. Just curious.

edited Mar 24 2012 at 7:49

Ryan
1,044●2●5●22

asked Feb 24 2012 at 2:44

Ryan
1,044●2●5●22

i'm curious too. after a quick 'google image' search, i would guess that the men were/are light and muscular. a light weight boxer/martial artist look rather than a heavy body builder look. at least those tribes that have stuck to their historical way of life & diet – daz Feb 24 2012 at 6:56

1

Bodyweight is hugely influenced by climate. In the tropics, a high surface area to weight ratio is good for staying cool. Thus, those people tend to be smaller. In more temperate zones, heat loss is a problem and those people tend to be bigger. – JRM Mar 10 2012 at 4:11

Cave Tomboy · Answer 1 · 2012-02-24 12:57:09Z UTC

1

I can tell you that all the San people I have met or seen (maybe 150 or so) here in Namibia are about my size or smaller. I'm 5'6" and ~124 lbs.

answered Feb 24 2012 at 12:57

Cave Tomboy
1,884●3●4●9

	is that the men, women or both? – daz Feb 24 2012 at 22:09
	I think it's worth noting that the San have been displaced over centuries from the best land by agriculturalists. A problem with looking today's hunter gatherers is that virtually everywhere that once supported abundant game is now farmed for crops or grazed by pastoralists, and hunters gatherers are pushed to the margins. I would be surprised if any modern hunter gatherers are as big and well nourished as their ancestors. – stephenj Feb 25 2012 at 1:05
	Where do you get that information stephenj? Here in Namibia, that is not true. Their area may have been restricted, but one tribe was only displaced within the last 20 year and the other still lives and hunts on its ancestral land in Kalahari. daz -- that's both, actually. I didn't see a lot of difference in size between genders. – Cave Tomboy Feb 28 2012 at 13:40
	The southern Africans are, generally, a pretty short bunch (ignoring the whites and central africans). Whether they grew up on bush meat or maize they tend to be smaller so I would put it down to genetics. – Scotty Von Porkchop Mar 10 2012 at 16:33

j3wcy · Answer 2 · 2012-02-24 02:51:52Z UTC

0

I would be pretty immediately skeptical of any data like this. Unless there's a way to tell from a skeleton that I just don't know about and probably don't entirely believe in anyway.

answered Feb 24 2012 at 2:51

j3wcy
4,386●1●9●18

I probably should have made the question more clear, hunter gatherers of today, that are able to be truly measured. – Ryan Feb 24 2012 at 2:59

Andreas · Answer 3 · 2012-02-24 16:33:27Z UTC

0

In general they are small and skinny (Exceptions include some Indian tribes and inuits). Their BMI are typically in the low range of normal (18-23).

answered Feb 24 2012 at 16:33

Andreas
573●1●2

Yeah, I grew up with west coast First Nations, a few Cree girls, and a couple Inuit families- drastic differences in BMI. The west coast First Nations (mostly coast salish) and Inuit mostly have short, stocky body types with wider facial features, the deep soft voices, and generally carry more weight. The cree girls are little whips, very slender, little hips, flat chested, and have high cheekbones with more slender facial features. Both can have very healthy bodies, but are fundamentally built very differently. Neat to see the diversity in our one community! – JeJ Mar 10 2012 at 3:07

Wayne daniels · Answer 4 · 2012-03-10 01:51:08Z UTC

0

Around 9 stone id guess

answered Mar 10 2012 at 1:51

Wayne daniels
321●2●1

1

Most of the world do not have a clue what a "stone" weighs. – Warren D Mar 10 2012 at 15:29

1 stone = 14 pounds – Elle Mar 24 2012 at 12:42

1

Kilos anybody? . – Warren D Mar 24 2012 at 17:42

Im sure they can work out what a stone is.Grow up warrena – Wayne daniels Mar 25 2012 at 8:51

Oh sorry, Waynetta – Warren D Apr 7 2012 at 22:31

dethrophes · Answer 5 · 2012-03-24 17:22:35Z UTC

It depends on their enviroment and activities. we can actually make some educated guesses as to the size and weight of prehistoric man. Namely by measureing the muscle attachment points allows us to extrpulate .uscle size sand as such atleast guess weight.you should also remember weight is actually meaning less. It is highly probable that they were alot heavier than we are, due largely to much larger muscles, but also their irregular diet would have meant that they had much higher glycogen stores, and generally higher mineral storage. Further more due to the rougher life they hadarger joints and denser bones, as they went largely barefoot they also had much more developed calves that what we see today. Furthermore in the north they were bigger anyway. As such comparing Caucasians to tropical hunter gathers is missleading

Bodyweight of today’s hunter gatherers?

5 Answers