Were did you get this from? if you don't mind me asking. also i thought we adopted farming practices around 6000 years ago?
Last edited:
Who do you believe? the government or the whole of nature?
- Thread starter Gagnrad
- Start date
Were did you get this from? if you don't mind me asking. also i thought we adopted farming practices around 6000 years ago?
Tengu that's a brilliant answer
I'm just fed up suffering in this heat though
M
traditional build Mary (and Tengu), traditional build.
Interesting, but before you take what the book says and accept it, I reccomend that you read into the subject a bit more.
Humans have changed, now that we can be active all year round, and sleep less we need more carbs. I don't need a low fat (no carbs diet) because if I had one, I wouldn't last untill lunch. Remember that some of us are a bit more physical than others. On a normal day (if my collarbone was not broken) at Lympstone I burn through about 3500 calories.
Different people have different metabolisms.
I found your post interesting, but not really sure of Op's intent.
So, out of 10, ill give you a not convinced.
Humans have changed, now that we can be active all year round, and sleep less we need more carbs. I don't need a low fat (no carbs diet) because if I had one, I wouldn't last untill lunch. Remember that some of us are a bit more physical than others. On a normal day (if my collarbone was not broken) at Lympstone I burn through about 3500 calories.
Different people have different metabolisms.
I found your post interesting, but not really sure of Op's intent.
So, out of 10, ill give you a not convinced.
Last edited:
My wife! I tend to believe her - she's quite clever you know. (Highest IQ that U of Toronto Academic Bridging program has ever measured).
I deliberately over estimated the age of modern agriculture so that there would be no argument that it went back further - my understanding is that it is approx 10k years old. So, 20k years is zilch in evolutionary terms and easily exceeds how long we've been farming.
Ph34r I don't advocate zero carb low fat - I advocate zero refined carb and sugar, as much complex carb and fat as you need, plus loads of protein. The protein tends to suppress appetite for longer. (Having said that, I fall off too - I love chocolate and cakes as much as the next man).
Hmmm, please see this thread,
Cooking fire; How cooking made us human
http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46569
cheers,
Mary
Cooking fire; How cooking made us human
http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46569
cheers,
Mary
Well, right up until they died at an average age of 40 or so...
That's just rubbish. Tasmanian devils are currently being decimated by a form of cancer.
The principle reason so many people get cancer these days is that we live longer. You've gotta die of something, and cancer is frequently what it is if nothing else gets you first.
Southey: I asked the boss...
"The idea of prehistoric human ancestors scavengers is so established, I wouldn't know where to look for a reference. But you don't even need to go back as far as the australopithicines. H. habilis certainly was a scavenger (and food for loads of other animals) and ergaster, rudolphensis and erectus were liable to have still been doing a lot of scavenging until the full transition (if there ever was one) to hunting."
I did a bit of googling and there's loads of info on it, I found this New Scientist article interesting.
Another good one here (read down to the bit about wheat intake being massively correlated with coronary heart disease)
"The idea of prehistoric human ancestors scavengers is so established, I wouldn't know where to look for a reference. But you don't even need to go back as far as the australopithicines. H. habilis certainly was a scavenger (and food for loads of other animals) and ergaster, rudolphensis and erectus were liable to have still been doing a lot of scavenging until the full transition (if there ever was one) to hunting."
I did a bit of googling and there's loads of info on it, I found this New Scientist article interesting.
Another good one here (read down to the bit about wheat intake being massively correlated with coronary heart disease)
Last edited:
robin wood
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Is there in anthropological circles a clear definition between hunters and scavengers? I mean that sort of clear delineation works say for lions and hyenas but the most successful, adaptable creatures tend to be able to take whatever food source is locally abundant whether that is hunting, gathering or scavenging. Where do flint arrowheads fit in? and cave paintings of hunting scenes? are these much later in date? were the arrowheads for defense rather than food? Sorry of this is going slightly off topic but the thread made me realise how little I know about this early period.
You are confuzzling me... I was talking to the guy that started the thread... But thanks anyway
(awkward turtle)
Robin:
The line between scavenging and hunting is indeed blurry. And early stone tools, such as Oldowan (2.5 ish to 1.7 ish million years ago) were likely for scraping and digging, as well as for smashing bones left at large carnivore kills to get at the marrow, and for bashing small animals, reptiles and perhaps birds. Oldowan tools are also known as pebble tools cos they were made from pebbles already closely resembling the tools they would become. They were pretty crude and simple. Arrowheads are way, way later (the earliest known are c. 60,000 years ago) and while anyone hungry enough will be happy for found food, arrowheads are largely indicative of hunting, not scavenging. The earliest cave paintings are somewhere around 30,000 years old.
(from my wife)
The line between scavenging and hunting is indeed blurry. And early stone tools, such as Oldowan (2.5 ish to 1.7 ish million years ago) were likely for scraping and digging, as well as for smashing bones left at large carnivore kills to get at the marrow, and for bashing small animals, reptiles and perhaps birds. Oldowan tools are also known as pebble tools cos they were made from pebbles already closely resembling the tools they would become. They were pretty crude and simple. Arrowheads are way, way later (the earliest known are c. 60,000 years ago) and while anyone hungry enough will be happy for found food, arrowheads are largely indicative of hunting, not scavenging. The earliest cave paintings are somewhere around 30,000 years old.
(from my wife)
IMHO there has been some complete rubbish written in this thread........Too much to mention all of it.
A couple that stick out are calling folks Eskimos, as that is clearly not what they cal themselves, and so takes credibility from that assertion.
A second is saying that UK nutritionists are behind those in the U.S. as this totally misses the point of how nutritionists actually recommend anything....i.e. on a one to one basis with no two people getting the same recommendation. Working and training with literally dozens of nutritionists tells me the thread comment was way off mark.
I would also be interested in hearing how doing twenty minutes hard exercise before eating helps your metabolism, as less than 30-33 minutes is not enough to affect it.
However, that said. Here is a link to the true answer to food intake and weight loss, and is in fact very simple and common sense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKs0oEIVOck
But never diet too much or you may end up here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSYQwDKm8Ps
Happy viewing
A couple that stick out are calling folks Eskimos, as that is clearly not what they cal themselves, and so takes credibility from that assertion.
A second is saying that UK nutritionists are behind those in the U.S. as this totally misses the point of how nutritionists actually recommend anything....i.e. on a one to one basis with no two people getting the same recommendation. Working and training with literally dozens of nutritionists tells me the thread comment was way off mark.
I would also be interested in hearing how doing twenty minutes hard exercise before eating helps your metabolism, as less than 30-33 minutes is not enough to affect it.
However, that said. Here is a link to the true answer to food intake and weight loss, and is in fact very simple and common sense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKs0oEIVOck
But never diet too much or you may end up here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSYQwDKm8Ps
Happy viewing
Of course not detailing what you consider to be rubbish prevents anyone from refuting your statements.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7852987.stm would tend to indicate otherwise.
re the hunting/scavenging........anthropologists have researched food aquisiton strategies right since the beginning of their discipline.
They routinely acknowledge that women and children bring in as much, indeed in many areas, more food, than the hunting menfolks do.
Hunters bring in high status stuff, the bigger meat iimmc, while the women and children and younger teenagers bring in on a constant basis. Small meat, like birds, eggs, reptiles and amphibians as well as the roots, fruits and tubers.
From an archaeological point of view however, the remaining evidences in the prehistorical record are heavily biased towards the preservation of stone and bone.
Thus we have the arrow heads, the stone choppers and scrapers and the cut marked bones.
One true irrefutable evidence for collecting (scavanging if you will) are the huge shell middens of the northern sea coasts.
Literally millions of collected and cooked molluscs..........and they don't need shot, netted, trapped, just patiently gathered.
cheers,
Toddy
They routinely acknowledge that women and children bring in as much, indeed in many areas, more food, than the hunting menfolks do.
Hunters bring in high status stuff, the bigger meat iimmc, while the women and children and younger teenagers bring in on a constant basis. Small meat, like birds, eggs, reptiles and amphibians as well as the roots, fruits and tubers.
From an archaeological point of view however, the remaining evidences in the prehistorical record are heavily biased towards the preservation of stone and bone.
Thus we have the arrow heads, the stone choppers and scrapers and the cut marked bones.
One true irrefutable evidence for collecting (scavanging if you will) are the huge shell middens of the northern sea coasts.
Literally millions of collected and cooked molluscs..........and they don't need shot, netted, trapped, just patiently gathered.
cheers,
Toddy
robin wood
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I would also be interested in hearing how doing twenty minutes hard exercise before eating helps your metabolism, as less than 30-33 minutes is not enough to affect it.
Happy viewing
I hope this thread can keep running without degenerating into silly slaggy stuff because the subject matter is actually quite interesting.
I very much enjoyed both the youtubes posted above.
My comment about 20 mins hard exercise first thing in the morning was based mostly on personal experience. I personally find 20 minutes splitting logs before breakfast kick starts my metabolism, generates considerable heat etc. I find it difficult to believe less than 30-33 minutes has no effect, care to share a source?
Rocky style!
Toddy, that is interesting stuff. Are there any good books on the subject that you would personally recommend?
Pteron.
It is hard to answer you properly, as you seem to not to have bothered to read my post (and have neglected to mention other posters who strongly disagree with the OP), even though you quoted me as saying 'IMHO', so I was quoting MY opinions, and not making a statement, as you wrongly presume.
I did scan through your link, but saw it was concerning diabetes, and not metabolic rates, so was pretty useless for an example I guess. Can you show me the point in the link that refers to either 20 minutes hard exercise, or approx 30 as I mentioned, and in relation to the metabolic rate?
You may find it harsh that I don't take you seriously, but you accuse me of not detailing what I consider to be rubbish, and then go on to quote one of the two examples I detailed!!!!!! lol
I am more than happy to talk facts and provide links (as it seems that is what many on this site like...Rather than do their own research), so maybe you could provide another forty or fifty links to prove your assertion on British nutritionists, as you would that here are easily that many schools of thought in this area...Oh and don't forget to include examples from Holistic based, science based, and a slack handful of NHS related links, as well as Modern U.S. ones in selected areas...... I hope you now are getting my point that by putting up one poorly connected link really serves no purpose
It is hard to answer you properly, as you seem to not to have bothered to read my post (and have neglected to mention other posters who strongly disagree with the OP), even though you quoted me as saying 'IMHO', so I was quoting MY opinions, and not making a statement, as you wrongly presume.
I did scan through your link, but saw it was concerning diabetes, and not metabolic rates, so was pretty useless for an example I guess. Can you show me the point in the link that refers to either 20 minutes hard exercise, or approx 30 as I mentioned, and in relation to the metabolic rate?
You may find it harsh that I don't take you seriously, but you accuse me of not detailing what I consider to be rubbish, and then go on to quote one of the two examples I detailed!!!!!! lol
I am more than happy to talk facts and provide links (as it seems that is what many on this site like...Rather than do their own research), so maybe you could provide another forty or fifty links to prove your assertion on British nutritionists, as you would that here are easily that many schools of thought in this area...Oh and don't forget to include examples from Holistic based, science based, and a slack handful of NHS related links, as well as Modern U.S. ones in selected areas...... I hope you now are getting my point that by putting up one poorly connected link really serves no purpose
