Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 199 posts

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#81

Post by newnewnew »

miles wrote: post #58
jacalata wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

google "The Paleo Diet", first result http://thepaleodiet.com/ : The Paleo Diet is based upon eating wholesome, contemporary foods from the food groups our hunter-gatherer ancestors would have thrived on during the Paleolithic era, the time period from about 2.6 million years ago to the beginning of the agricultural revolution, about 10,000 years ago. These foods include fresh meats (preferably grass-produced or free…

The idea that grains and legumes cause obesity is absurd. Asians have been living largely on both for thousands of years [1,2] and have enjoyed incredibly low obesity rates [3] until recently. Consuming more calories than you expend is the culprit here, not grains and legumes. If we want to single out some of the leading causes for overconsumption, I'd point to refined sugar, oils (pure fat), junk food, and high fruc…

We should also remember that Asians are Asian. A few of the high-profile genes that we know influence diet occur at far different levels in Asian and other populations, such as lactose and alcohol tolerance. To believe that there is one best diet for all mankind we would have to deny human genetic diversity.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#82

Post by [deleted] »

venomsnake wrote: post #77

Now I have lost 12 kg for 2 months (114 to 102 on 180cm height) - from just cutting soda and anything with sugar, and limiting starches to minimum and eating unlimited amounts of raw nuts, eggs, meat, cheese, olives. I was obese and now my BMI scaled me into overweight. There is no relation with the two arguments btw - "People adapt fast" - yeah but the ability to spike your blood sugar and insulin all day long into…

[deleted]

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#83

Post by olefoo »

riffraff wrote: post #69
olefoo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even the Paleolithic that had a 'better' diet; sugar production in industrial quantities didn't happen until the 19th century and High Fructose Corn Syrup [1] didn't become a staple of the human diet until the second half of the 20th century. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup

> High Fructose Corn Syrup [1] didn't become a staple of the human die until AFAICT HFCS didn't become a staple of human diet, it just became important in the US, the rest of the world still uses _way_ more sugar than HFCS (e.g. a 60:1 rate of production in the EU).

Well. I am an American and we are the world, right....?

// I jest. But if your colas are still made from sugar you are having the last laugh.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#84

Post by tjogin »

dlytle wrote: post #75
dualogy wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not denying that there certainly are such factors at play at some level, but not sure how decisive they are: I'd wager they won't make a dent if you consume 4500 calories of Paleo a day, and likewise won't if you consume 1200 calories of junk-food a day -- say for the average non-athlete rather-sedentary adult.

One of the primary arguments of a keto/paleo diet is that the different diets affect how many calories your body thinks it needs, how it uses them, and how it influences behavior as a result. (Disclaimer: using imaginary numbers below to illustrate the theory.) Let's say your body typically wants 1000 calories at breakfast, and you eat 1000 calories with a heavy load of carbs. Carbohydrates with a high glycemic index…

This is pseudo science, there are droves of scientific literature that shows that meal timing is irrelevant and that as long as macronutrient content is similar, a calorie is a calorie.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#85

Post by tjogin »

s_baby wrote: post #65
dualogy wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not denying that there certainly are such factors at play at some level, but not sure how decisive they are: I'd wager they won't make a dent if you consume 4500 calories of Paleo a day, and likewise won't if you consume 1200 calories of junk-food a day -- say for the average non-athlete rather-sedentary adult.

There's a reason Atkin's diet is so popular. It's because it's extremely effective at shedding weight. Sure there might be a point at which you're gaining weight due to the fact that it's an astronomical amount of calories and there are going to be differences in biology but over-all people find eliminating carbs will cut the weight even if they don't cut calories.

The same argument could be, and often is used, to prove the existence of god.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#86

Post by lifeisstillgood »

s_baby wrote: post #62
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #56

One of the things that make me wonder is the idea that there are " diseases if civilisation" (accepted, look at increases in asthma etc) and that they are caused by diet Of all the things that exist in the modern world, lead in atmosphere, weird fungicides in our furniture fire retardants, etc, why is it the one thing that is under individual control that is the main contributor to our malease - it seems far too link…

I don't see the diet as being universally applicable but the theory behind the diet is compelling. There's an overlap in risk factors for diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. There's also an overlap in medications(e.g statins/aspirin lowering cancer risk. metformin lowering cancer risk). It's possible that all these diseases share biomolecular cascades. http://robbwolf.com/2012/03/09/paleo-diet-inflammation-metfo...

My skepticism antennae are twitching

Firstly it has the tang of religion - we have found the answer, it requires certain rites and adherences and we must now persuade you to believe

Secondly it is highly highly unlikely an actual Stone Age person had access to the range of meat and vegetables currently in wegmans and so the question is which Stone Age diet? The one where they lived near a lake and had fish, the one where they had lots of vitamin C rich berries but few fish?

Thirdly evolution is slow but not glacial - 2.6m years is a long time, and frankly why go back that far and not further? At what point has evolution not caught up and how does that overlap with 'out of africa'?

Finally and th biggest question to me, is why assume that so many maleases are solely or primarily diet related. Obesity is pretty obvious but asthma? Cancer even?

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#87

Post by praxeologist »

brd wrote: post #9

The biggest problem I have with Zuk is that the entire premise of this book is based on a straw man argument. The "Paleo" in paleo diet comes from the fact that there was a clear dip in human health once we entered the neolithic era (i.e. started farming). We are not emulating a caveman's diet per se, we are simply trying to find and remove what caused that original dip in health. To anyone uninformed about the paleo…

Paleo to me is certainly not a historical reenactment. I also am not one trying to recreate the standard diet in almond flour and all that. Paleo people drive me crazy being so anti-dairy; cream is a wondrous fuel.

I think Dr. Harris' blog is a great source and I follow his steps best I can: http://www.archevore.com/get-started/

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#88

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

radio4fan wrote: post #76
tjogin wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diseases of civilization are a function of congregation, not eating grains. Obesity is the result of a caloric surplus. Cavemen didn't have that luxury.

> Obesity is the result of a caloric surplus. Cavemen didn't have that luxury. No obese cavemen? How about a cavewoman? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

The Venus of Willendorf Is widely regarded to represent an exceptional, ideal image not a typical person. People who are short of food idealise a food surplus.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#89

Post by woe »

As depicted in the review, the argument boils down to "a lot can change in 10,000 years". I'm happy to agree that this is true, but it doesn't mean that a lot must change in 10,000 years.

The fact that evolution can move quickly does not indicate that it always will. Nothing in this article refutes the proposition that we may be evolutionarily maladapted to the typical modern western diet dominated by highly refined sugars and gluten grains.

Is paleo maybe a somewhat precious and slightly extreme reaction? Maybe. But that doesn't invalidate the core insight: that we're filling our pieholes with vast amounts of crap our bodies aren't optimized for. And given that the metabolic syndrome of disorders thought to be associated with this diet tends to develop later in life, often after the prime reproductive years, it's perfectly plausible that an evolutionary adaptation to this diet might be particularly slow to develop.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#90

Post by Tichy »

"the fossil record of the Stone Age is so small and necessarily incomplete that its ability to tell us about paleolithic society is severely limited."

Actually there are still people who live as hunter-gatherers, or there were until a couple of years ago, and that is where a lot of the information comes from. It was also possible to watch what happened when such people entered civilization. There also apparently is a marked difference in the fossil record concerning health of hunter-gatherers vs agricultural societies.

I just read "The World Until Yesterday" by Jared Diamond, and he also touches on some of those health problems. Western people are actually less afflicted by them than those hunter-gatherers who entered 'civilization' in their lifetimes, so Diamond also says that Western people probably already evolved to some degree to deal better with the abundance of grains, salt and sugar.

That doesn't imply we are already perfectly adapted, though, especially if some diseases clearly don't seem to be prevalent in traditional societies.

Unfortunately he isn't very specific about the traditional diets, for example, and trying to look up paleo diets it seems to me a lot of time they are mostly an excuse to eat lots of meat and many books are not that well researched. In Diamond's books he mentions that many tribes actually ate mostly starches and meat only on special occasions - unfortunately he didn't mention the actual frequency, or I missed reading that (once a week? a month?). Also obviously humans adapted to lots of different environments, there are probably tribes who ate 100% meat, too (like in arctic regions where nothing grows?) - so maybe you can take your pick, or you just have to experiment...

That lactose tolerance seems to have increased fitness a lot certainly makes me wary of just accepting "pure paleo" as the best path.

Post reply on HN