The mammoths ate 'em all because they were so yummy and then died out from starvation.
Neanderthal diet
- Thread starter rik_uk3
- Start date
The mammoths ate 'em all because they were so yummy and then died out from starvation.
xylaria
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Parsnips for breakfast
parsnips for dinner
good old parsnips for tea
If I ate nothing but parsnips
how happy i would be.
Ok there is wild carrot but the roots are scrawny, sea kale, sea beet not a lot but really sweet, same with sweet grass, burdock and reedmace for winter, plus various grass seeds and pollens such reed mace and pine. a starch can be made from pine bark but there not evedance of it been used in britian. Our hunter gather knew more than we do and could probably find food sources alot easyier than we can. It is part of human nature to be bone idle why dig down 2 feet for burdock when you can just live off parnsips.
Last edited:
Swallow old chap. A real paleo diet would probably include about a cupful of hard fought for roots and other carbs a day of which about 30% would be inedible fibre, nuts, seeds berries when in season. When you are compeating against the birds, the season will be very short. . A properly balanced neo-paleo(TM) diet while it would be body triming should not cause ketosis.
Diet has to be measured against exercise, think of the effort required to use a digging stick compared to a spade. Main slow burn calories would come from fats and main meal would be at the beging of the day as it would be stewed over night. lots of stuff even though you cook would be eaten raw.
S
Diet has to be measured against exercise, think of the effort required to use a digging stick compared to a spade. Main slow burn calories would come from fats and main meal would be at the beging of the day as it would be stewed over night. lots of stuff even though you cook would be eaten raw.
S
I had a look at the articles. Some are very interesting.
The one suggesting that grilling food was linked to cancer was interesting particularly. I would have thought that grilled food would have played quite a large part in human history as a whole, surely it can't be that bad?
Lub0, you don't seriously think ye olde man lived longer than us?
A quick google suggests that 40 was a 'good age'.
When the film Saving Private Ryan was made the hunt was on for uniforms. As luck would have it a load were found but...the soldiers of 60 years ago were shorter and lighter than the modern soldier so uniforms had to be made to fill the gaps.
I've nursed a woman of 105, bright as a button (came in with a broken hip) and on one ward out of eight beds three were occupied by women who were 100 (one was 101). While many moan about the modern diet we are healthier now than ever in many respects. Don't blame the range and diversity of food available for all the medical problems, blame the individuals who over indulge.
Sandbender, great photo and the picture is very typical of a lunch I'll take with me when on a day bimble, I joke not and lovely it is too
A very valid point, but I these women will have grown up in a time when the country was in general quite considerably more active, and healthier as a whole and probably maintained a predominantly healthy diet throughout their lives.
How many of the fat wee kids you see these days will live to that age do you think? Let alone the heiffers that seem to dominate our streets today?
Like it or not the shear amount of fatty and sugary foods available these days are having a serious effect on people's health.
This is not helped by the fact that ready meals, and such like are CHEAPER than fresh fruit and veg. Compounded by the the poor culinary skills of your average Brit.
Just my 2p
Edit: that sounds like I'm trying to stir things up, I'm not, I just wanted to make the comment.
As for the op, I think as has been said, the wild food series demonstrated that records of such things would be near impossible. I see no reason to think they wouldn't have made use of any edible plant material they could.
Andy
Last edited:
Grilling/roasting any food over an open flame/embers will produce carcinogens on the surface of the food where it scorches/burns. Unavoidable. However, this is also what makes it taste so good! Alas...
Ultimately, if you really want to reduce your cancer risk, see WCRF 2nd expert report recommendations (http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_research/expert_report/recommendations.php). They will all have a far bigger impact on your cancer risk than not bbqing your dinner.
Ultimately, if you really want to reduce your cancer risk, see WCRF 2nd expert report recommendations (http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_research/expert_report/recommendations.php). They will all have a far bigger impact on your cancer risk than not bbqing your dinner.
+1 on adding the tatse. And while it may raise the risk ok some cancers it lowers the fat content so all in all it's a trade off on the health risks vs benefits.
This paleo-diet bloke is in a spot of bother,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/u...hts-north-carolina-licensing-rebuke.html?_r=1
Happy trails...torc.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/u...hts-north-carolina-licensing-rebuke.html?_r=1
Happy trails...torc.
Rather ironically the low fat issue/high fat issue does not apply. People with lower than normal cholesterol levels are statistically more prone to strokes. There is no conclusive evidence that high cholesterol levels cause cardiovascular disease either. Low fat diets have been indicated in some form of cancer..
What has been discovered by studies is that high fat (not a pure fat diet), high fiber and low refined carb/sugar is actually statistically more likely to prolong life. The devil would seem to be refined carbohydrates which are found alongside fats in prepared foods. Thing is refined carbs are highly addictive and give the brain all sorts of chemical 'hits' as our endocrine system adjusts to it absorption and storage.
So in all likelihood some paleo's lived a long time and suffered no strokes, cancer, diabetes, heart disease (incidentally the stats have not risen on cvd, we have just got more sophisticated on diagnosis). The old polyunsaturated myth has been proven wrong a thousand times as has the 'eggs and cholesterol' myth.
The fundamental problem with neo-paleo diets is primitive man ate all of the fatty bits first, heart, lungs, brains, kidneys, marrow etc. the offal is more nutritious than the 'meat'. The red meat (bulk protein) was not consumed till the really good bits were eaten. Alpha hunters wolves, lions etc still get the 'ikky bits' first the bulk meat is left for the rest of the pack.
our current dietary view of what is 'good' and what is 'bad' was formed by epidemiologists who were applying unproven data to national health programs in the 40/50/60’s. They were trying to save that one person in 600 who ‘may be’ affected. The food companies read the literature (unsupported by proper and conclusive studies) and went with it. Now we are in a situation where it is impossible to do a public u-turn, so it’s a gradual change. Notice margarine no longer says rich in polyunsaturated oils.. now they say high in omega 3.
Smoke, mirrors, poor science and poor data interpretation has got us into the ‘healthiest bunch of fat b######’ in the last 1000 years.
Now where is that pork chop?!
What has been discovered by studies is that high fat (not a pure fat diet), high fiber and low refined carb/sugar is actually statistically more likely to prolong life. The devil would seem to be refined carbohydrates which are found alongside fats in prepared foods. Thing is refined carbs are highly addictive and give the brain all sorts of chemical 'hits' as our endocrine system adjusts to it absorption and storage.
So in all likelihood some paleo's lived a long time and suffered no strokes, cancer, diabetes, heart disease (incidentally the stats have not risen on cvd, we have just got more sophisticated on diagnosis). The old polyunsaturated myth has been proven wrong a thousand times as has the 'eggs and cholesterol' myth.
The fundamental problem with neo-paleo diets is primitive man ate all of the fatty bits first, heart, lungs, brains, kidneys, marrow etc. the offal is more nutritious than the 'meat'. The red meat (bulk protein) was not consumed till the really good bits were eaten. Alpha hunters wolves, lions etc still get the 'ikky bits' first the bulk meat is left for the rest of the pack.
our current dietary view of what is 'good' and what is 'bad' was formed by epidemiologists who were applying unproven data to national health programs in the 40/50/60’s. They were trying to save that one person in 600 who ‘may be’ affected. The food companies read the literature (unsupported by proper and conclusive studies) and went with it. Now we are in a situation where it is impossible to do a public u-turn, so it’s a gradual change. Notice margarine no longer says rich in polyunsaturated oils.. now they say high in omega 3.
Smoke, mirrors, poor science and poor data interpretation has got us into the ‘healthiest bunch of fat b######’ in the last 1000 years.
Now where is that pork chop?!
I was also under the impression that it was established that Diet Colesterol and Blood Colesterol were unrelated. I.e. that a high colesterol diet does not lead to high colesterol in the blood.
It is related but it's not the be all and end all of the issue. Sandsnaked correctly pointed out the importance of high fiber in the diet. One of the things it does is collect the excess cholesterol like a sponge and remove it from the system. Genetics also seems to play a big part.
That's opposite of any reliable statistics I've ever seen. Although I'll admit it does fit my Grandmother's profile. She could have lived on a diet of bacon fat, buttermilk biquits and molasses. But she did indeed also eat a lot of high fiber vegetables (seasoned with bacon fat like a true Southerner)
I enjoyed this programme,
http://vplay.ro/watch/g7v8mg9w/
have a little look, its an hour of your life, won't change it but none the less its worth viewing.
http://vplay.ro/watch/g7v8mg9w/
have a little look, its an hour of your life, won't change it but none the less its worth viewing.
LOL. Dammit Rik. Why do you post hour long programs when I don't have an hour? I'll try to come back later and see it.
Santaman, unfortunatly the stats are screwed about fat cv risk and etc. High cholesterol is not a health problem rather the reverse if your over 50 and dont have an elevated level the stats clearly show a very much higher risk of other degenerative diseases. The surgeon generals reports started by McCarthy (known for his non biased views and tolerance of anyone who disagreed with him) were based upon a supposition of the argument put forward by ONE advocate with NO proven science. Fact is for the last 60 years are diet has been the least healthy its ever been. Read Gary Taubs its a very good compilation of all of the eveidence.
No arguments there.But then again, our diets are also the farthest from the officially reccomended diets ever.
xylaria
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I read somewhere that during the 1950s we ate far more animals fats, but we were thinner and had less CV. But then coal fires didnt clean and load themselves, washing clothes broke a sweat, and no-one but the richest had cars or tv. Cakes contianed sugar, wheat flour and eggs, not asparteme, trans-fat emulisfiers and a binding agent from courtholds. People ate real food and had a more active life. Kids played on dirty bombsites not playstations, and thier immune systems had enough to do without causing allergies.
I'll agree with almost everything you say. "Almost." In the 1950s we may well have eaten more animal fats as a percentage of our total diets (in fact, like you, I'm positive we did) but!!! and this is a very big but!!! We ate less food of ALL kinds total back then. a Mcdonald's hamburger was 3 ounces, not the 8 ounces in a doudle meat quarter pounder today; and an order of fries today is almost trople the size they were back then. Add to that the size of sugary drinks by comparison:
1950s: a small drink was about 10 ounces
Now: a small drink cup is 16 ounces and has endless free refills (average customer goes back for one refill with the meal and another for the road = total of 48 ounces per visit)
I think it is true, in the fifties and sixties that we ate less food in general. I am fairly certain that we were more active too. I am sure that I never saw the number of grossly obese people that I see today.
Maybe it is genetics when I see fat kids and fat parents, but then maybe it is just bad habits passing from one generation to the other. I just cannot understand how some people eat themselves into the state that they do. They cannot be long for this world. At 5' 10" and pushing 13 stone I considered myself overweight. I eat only two meals a day at the moment and I have got back down to a more sensible 11 and a half stone.
Maybe it is genetics when I see fat kids and fat parents, but then maybe it is just bad habits passing from one generation to the other. I just cannot understand how some people eat themselves into the state that they do. They cannot be long for this world. At 5' 10" and pushing 13 stone I considered myself overweight. I eat only two meals a day at the moment and I have got back down to a more sensible 11 and a half stone.
Similar threads
