PDA

View Full Version : Natural Eating by Geoff Bond.


Darryl Shaw
02-14-2009, 05:52 AM
Natural Eating by Geoff Bond, author of my favourite paleo diet book Deadly Harvest, is now available to read free online -

http://www.naturaleater.com/Natural-Eating/Natural-Eating-Web-Index.htm

George Mounce
02-14-2009, 06:44 AM
I don't buy this:

The human species is designed to get a good percentage of protein from vegetation. You have to eat lots, up to 3 pounds net per day (measure it out to start with).That is the way that our bodies are designed.

Not a great thing to tell people who already have a sugar problem based on who is supposed to read this book:

Fruit

Their consumption should be increased to a minimum of 25% of the diet. Again, eat lots. Up to 2 pounds per day. Concentrate on the unrestricted fruits in Table 1 of Appendix 1, Good Foods to be Eaten in Bulk.

It doesn't talk about why this occurs enough (i.e. sugar release which causes insulin to be release, which btw isn't necessarily a bad thing):

Caffeine

Caffeine provokes the secretion of insulin. Prefer decaffeinated drinks wherever possible.

Heh, I am an avid hunter and my freezer is full of game meat, I don't buy this:

The problem for meat eaters today is that there is nothing available resembling the animal matter for which we are genetically programmed.

It is out there, you have to actually go get it rather than relying on meat producers.

All in all, I think the book is a good read and I really just focused on one chapter here. It has somethings that are kind of iffy in my mind, but the general jist is sound and matches what other people have said about eating.

Darryl Shaw
02-16-2009, 06:20 AM
George,

Studies on human coprolites show that paleolithic hunter-gatherers ate ~130g of fibre per day so eating 3 - 5 pounds of fruit and vegetables per day doesn't seem all that unreasonable considering we evolved from mostly herbivorous/frugivorous primates.

In Australia , Aborigines are known to have eaten some 300 different species of fruit, 150 varieties of roots and tubers, and a dizzying number of nuts, seeds, and vegetables (Brand-Miller and Holt 1998). Based on the analysis of over 800 of these plant foods, the fibre intake was estimated between 80 to 130 g/d, depending on the contribution of plants to daily energy needs (Brand-Miller and Holt 1998). This daily intake is most likely higher when you consider that fibre in the form of resistant starch and oligosaccharides were not measured by the researchers among the economically important roots and tubers.

In the semi-arid Trans-Pecos region of west Texas , a nearly continuous 10,000-year record of a foraging lifestyle has been documented in dry cave deposits. Considered one of the most complete records of foraging lifestyle in North America, nearly three decades of excavation and extensive analysis of well-preserved macrobotanical remains and human coprolites (feces) from a number of cave sites (Sobolik 1994) reveal a plant-based diet that conservatively providing between 150 to 250 g/d of dietary fibre from dozens of plant species. The fiber-rich diet is well-illustrated by the visual presence (Figure 1) of undigested fiber (cellulose) in nearly 100% of the human coprolites studied throughout the entire 10,000-year sequence (Sobolik 1994).

http://www.paleobioticslab.com/evolution_fibre_colorectalcancer.htm

Dr. Poinar turned to the most intriguing field of ancient DNA, human remains. He analyzed several 2,000-year-old coprolites from Hinds Cave in southwest Texas.

."It's one of the biggest crap deposits known," says Vaughn Bryant, an anthropologist at Texas A&M University who led the excavation of the Hinds Cave deposit in the mid-1970s and provided Dr. Poinar with the samples.

The cave, an enormous, very dry, cliff-face rock shelter, housed generations of hunter-gatherers for 9,000 years. The site has yielded more than 2,000 cow-patty-shaped human coprolites.

The shape of these coprolites is due to the "astronomical" amounts of fibre in them, Dr. Bryant says. He estimates that the Hinds Cave inhabitants ate 15 times the daily fibre intake of present-day North Americans, mostly in the form of roasted desert plants, including agave and yucca.

Using mitochondrial DNA analysis, Dr. Poinar showed that three coprolites belonged to separate individuals. And he confirmed Dr. Bryant's microscopic analysis of the contents: These paleo-peoples were eating well.

Through genetic reconstruction, he showed that in the 24 to 48 hours before relieving himself at the back of the shelter, one Hinds Cave resident had eaten a veritable Thanksgiving feast. The coprolite included evidence of pronghorn antelope, cottontail rabbit, packrat, squirrel and eight types of wild plants.

http://www.mcmaster.ca/research/sciencecity/globe-article_poinar.htm

George Mounce
02-16-2009, 08:16 AM
So why then are veggie proteins considered second class if it is our primary source?

I've seen this debated a lot by vegetarians, and I don't buy it. 1 steak versus 46 apples. I will take the steak every day.

I can show you studies of Eskimos who only eat meat and are healthy as all get out. I'm not going to buy the fact people absolutely need fiber.

People back then ate what was around them, and they ate to survive. You take those people and move them to a different place their eating habits would change as well.

Darryl Shaw
02-17-2009, 06:03 AM
George,

Those "cow-patty-shaped" coprolites do not lie; paleolithic hunter-gatherers ate enormous volumes of plant foods daily in addition to the animal source foods they were eating. In other words paleo-man would have eaten the steak and the 46 apples. :p

As for the inuits, well first off they're the most modern of all hunter-gatherer groups so their diet is in no way representative of any kind of stone-age diet. Secondly it is simply wrong to say they "only eat meat". Clearly they don't eat anywhere near the volume of plant foods enjoyed by hunter-gatherers in more temperate climes but they do eat a wide variety of plant foods and harvest and store many of them to see them through the winter.

Edible Plants of The Arctic. by A. E. Porsild. (pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic6-1-15.pdf)

Patrick Yeung
02-17-2009, 03:52 PM
What may be really hard to understand and comprehend for some of us who are die hard dieters is that....

People have survived thousands of years on probably millions of different diets/combinations of food. Not only this, many of them thrived and were considered very healthy.

The human body is very complex and very resilent. It will repair itself, fight off diseases, cue you in on what you need, and what you dont, among many other things. You hear of stories of people surviving with no food or water for 30 days, or people being stranded on an island living off coconuts and fish.

Watch Survivor Man and see the very different food choices he finds in each enviornment as simpile proof.

Mike ODonnell
02-21-2009, 09:47 AM
Good stuff from Robb Wolf's blog....seemed like the right place for it:

One of the common misconceptions/counter arguments about the paleo diet is that our ancestors “just didn’t eat much meat…animals run away…plants are easier”. At first blush this kinda makes sense, until you trek across ANY open landscape and imagine fueling your life with the vegetation available under foot. Work your way to northern latitudes and the likelihood dwindles further. Anthropologists and archaeologists are fully aware of our ancestors’ prowess as hunters, whether the vegetarians want to buy this proposition or not. This debate becomes something akin to a tennis volley or a little kid’s argument “Yes it is!, No it’s not!!” I guess you can dismiss the obvious like the archaeological record, but there are other arguments that border on first order, foundational notions. Here are a few papers to consider:

Physical Activity, energy expenditure and fitness. This is an analysis of contemporary hunter gatherers and extrapolations from archaeological data. The take-home is our ancestors were VERY active and burned a lot of K-cals in that activity. From this we consider the next paper:

Plant to Animal Subsistence Ratios. This is an analysis of over 200 hunter gatherer groups and what they ate. Two interesting things emerge: A-more than 50% of cals came from animal sources. B-It is thermodynamically IMPOSSIBLE to feed the activity level of our ancestors on the plants available to our paleolithic ancestors. You either need a fermentive gut and must spend all day grazing like a cow or a gorilla, or you need to kill something. As a side note: There was never a vegetarian hunter gatherer group..or perhaps there was and they died off, but they left no descendants. You do not find vegetarianims until the advent of agriculture.

People may eat alot of vegetables...but it's not going to be a large % of their diet...plain and simple...unless they plan on living on 1500 calories a day and most active hunter/gather types probably need 3000-4000.

That and I eat very little fiber.....and I poop daily just fine.

Chances are if there were vegetarian based hunter gather tribers...they were isolated from other meat eating tribes, as the meat eaters would of easily conquered them and took their land....of course no scientific data to back up that assumption.

George Mounce
02-21-2009, 11:04 AM
But it does make sense MOD. Agriculture en masse was made to feed thousands and millions of the poor. Not a tribe of multiple families. They could just hunt their food and live off what the land naturally provided.

I'm with Robb on this one.

Garrett Smith
02-21-2009, 02:00 PM
Holy cow, ~130g of fiber/day? No wonder they had to be nomadic, all the areas nearby would be covered with "cow-patty-shaped" coprolites within a week at that rate!

George Mounce
02-21-2009, 03:24 PM
Holy cow, ~130g of fiber/day? No wonder they had to be nomadic, all the areas nearby would be covered with "cow-patty-shaped" coprolites within a week at that rate!

But think how well the ground was fertilized!

Mike ODonnell
02-21-2009, 08:41 PM
But it does make sense MOD. Agriculture en masse was made to feed thousands and millions of the poor. Not a tribe of multiple families. They could just hunt their food and live off what the land naturally provided.

I'm with Robb on this one.

I'm with Robb too....or like I said on his blog, I've never met a vegetarian that scared me.

I fast and I crave fatty meat....I workout and I crave fruit aftrerwards....I have never craved broccoli by the bucket load or had my mouth water at the sight of lettuce. Body knows what it wants.....that and Guinness of course.

Darryl Shaw
02-24-2009, 06:49 AM
Good stuff from Robb Wolf's blog....seemed like the right place for it:

One of the common misconceptions/counter arguments about the paleo diet is that our ancestors “just didn’t eat much meat…animals run away…plants are easier”. At first blush this kinda makes sense, until you trek across ANY open landscape and imagine fueling your life with the vegetation available under foot. Work your way to northern latitudes and the likelihood dwindles further. Anthropologists and archaeologists are fully aware of our ancestors’ prowess as hunters, whether the vegetarians want to buy this proposition or not. This debate becomes something akin to a tennis volley or a little kid’s argument “Yes it is!, No it’s not!!” I guess you can dismiss the obvious like the archaeological record, but there are other arguments that border on first order, foundational notions. Here are a few papers to consider:

Physical Activity, energy expenditure and fitness. This is an analysis of contemporary hunter gatherers and extrapolations from archaeological data. The take-home is our ancestors were VERY active and burned a lot of K-cals in that activity. From this we consider the next paper:

Plant to Animal Subsistence Ratios. This is an analysis of over 200 hunter gatherer groups and what they ate. Two interesting things emerge: A-more than 50% of cals came from animal sources. B-It is thermodynamically IMPOSSIBLE to feed the activity level of our ancestors on the plants available to our paleolithic ancestors. You either need a fermentive gut and must spend all day grazing like a cow or a gorilla, or you need to kill something. As a side note: There was never a vegetarian hunter gatherer group..or perhaps there was and they died off, but they left no descendants. You do not find vegetarianims until the advent of agriculture.

People may eat alot of vegetables...but it's not going to be a large % of their diet...plain and simple...unless they plan on living on 1500 calories a day and most active hunter/gather types probably need 3000-4000.

That and I eat very little fiber.....and I poop daily just fine.

Chances are if there were vegetarian based hunter gather tribers...they were isolated from other meat eating tribes, as the meat eaters would of easily conquered them and took their land....of course no scientific data to back up that assumption.

The Man the Hunter myth has long since been discredited as being the result of Victorian science and a male centred view of both modern and archaic hunter-gatherer societies which largely ignored the fact that amongst contemporary hunter-gatherer groups females provide most of their daily calorie intake, mostly from plant source foods.

Modern forensic science and DNA analysis has shown that for most of our history hominids were oportunistic omnivorous gatherer-scavengers with a gradual shift to the more modern pattern of hunting and gathering only taking place over the last 100,000 - 35,000 years. Prior to that animal source foods were mostly small easily caught animals, carrion or meat scavenged from more proficient predators, indeed forensic tests consistantly show that until fairly recently in our history tool marks on animal carcasses almost always overlaid the tooth marks of predators.

As far as the average stone age hominid was concerned the great outdoors was an all you could eat buffet with an abundant supply of plant source foods available year round for very little effort. Even in the colder more northern regions of europe there was an abundant supply of edible plants available throughout most of the year with around 90 different species of edible tuber in the UK alone*. To suggest that stone age man depended on a heavily meat based diet for their survival is simpy ridiculous and ignores the evidence.

Mr. Hantman, an archaeologist who studies the Monacan
Indians of Virginia, reviewed recent technological analyses which
refute the idea that our early ancestors' success at big-game
hunting was responsible for survival of the human species. The
1967 book, The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris, which made this
picture popular, was based on archaeological evidence that had
been accumulated for a century or more from studying stone tools
and animal bones found together at places like Olduvai Gorge in
East Africa. Morris' book claims that early humans survived
because they were naturally aggressive and violent.

"A closer look at the bones at these sites shows that hominids
[the earliest ancestors of homo sapiens] were not the only
participants in the killing game," said Mr. Hantman. Scanning
electron microscopy has found marks of saber-toothed tiger teeth
underneath the scraping marks of tools, indicating that the
carnivores probably killed the game first. "Our narrative of human
evolution is biased by our wanting a heroic past, but we appear to
have been a bit player in a complex ecological system," he said. It
is more likely that the success of the species was mostly based on
gathering and sharing, said Mr. Hantman.

http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/textonlyarchive/92-11-13/4.txt

*See Wild Food dvd and book by Ray Mears.

Mike ODonnell
02-24-2009, 08:38 AM
Sorry, I just can't buy into the theory that plants supply enough calorie loads for the energy requirement of wandering nomads who deal with harsh climates and periods of famine...as no way in hell could I eat even 1000 cal worth of plants without being bloated and sick to my stomach......that and I'll never give up meat, as my body tells me to eat it.

Patrick Yeung
02-24-2009, 05:23 PM
Yeah, itd be pretty hard to get enough calories from a plant diet unless they had avacados and coconuts galore to feast on.

They may have gotten away with much less protein and fats than we think they needed, as they were much smaller and weaker than modern man, but theyd definetly need to be eating animals for a high % of their calories.

I know that a traditional Chinese diet consists of huge amounts of vegetables and supplimented with animal fat, which was as quite a comodity. Meat was not really a part of their diet, yet they survived for thousands of years and was definetly an active bunch.

Robert Johnson
02-26-2009, 02:26 AM
We shouldn't just imagine what things were/are (?) like.

In the late wet season, when women’s foraging returns are highest, Hiwi men acquired 2,700 calories per hour foraging. Pregnant and nursing women obtained 1,500 calories per hour and post-reproductive or non-nursing women obtained 1,300 calories per hour (ibid: Tables 6 and 8).

However, from the same article -

In the other three seasons of the year the sex differences were even larger and Hiwi males obtained almost twice as many calories per hour by hunting as females did from gathering.

And,

Hadza men acquired about 1 kg meat/hr (~1,500 calories per hour) hunting large game and only 0.25 to 0.78 kg meat/day hunting small game or trapping (ibid). Hadza women obtained only about 900 calories per hour foraging on either roots or berries in the wet and dry seasons (Hawkes et al., 1989). It is now clear that these estimates of women’s gathering efficiency are too high because new laboratory analyses examining the nutritional composition of edible tuber portions show that the caloric density for typical plant foods used by the Hadza are much lower than previously estimated (Schoeninger et al., 2001: Table 2). Thus, Hadza men by hunting large game acquired energy at least as twice the rate as did Hadza women by gathering and close to ten times the rate that they could have achieved by focusing only on small game. Nevertheless, men diversify their production portfolio by opportunistically hunting small game when deemed worthwhile and by collecting non-meat foods such as honey, in addition to large game

I don't know how credible this article is.

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/gurveniussp.pdf


Both older and
more recent studies show us that the Hadza spend little more than two hours a day collecting
what they eat. Nevertheless, the Hadza remain nutritionally well based, even taking in four
times the minimum in daily protein requirements (Ndagala 1988: 66).

http://soar.wichita.edu/dspace/bitstream/10057/1862/3/LAJv28-p54-67.pdf

Mike ODonnell
02-26-2009, 10:16 AM
I know that a traditional Chinese diet consists of huge amounts of vegetables and supplimented with animal fat, which was as quite a comodity. Meat was not really a part of their diet, yet they survived for thousands of years and was definetly an active bunch.

Pork and lard are also used quite often....giving higher % for protein and fat intake...not that they didnt eat alot of veggies....just may not have a high % as most people think.

But this person thinks milk dates back farther than 10,000 years ago.....so it would make milk Paleo food....
Tuross’ attempt to show the Neanderthal’s dietary diversity comes on the heels of studies that examined the concentration of a type of nitrogen atom that increases in animals as they feed up the food chain. One study showed that Neanderthals living in Vindija Cave in Croatia had higher concentrations of this atom than even top predators, leading researchers to conclude that Neanderthals were heavy meat eaters.

Tuross questioned that conclusion, however, saying that scientists don’t know why that particular nitrogen isotope concentrates in predators, making it possible that other mechanisms are at work. In addition, she said, studies of Neanderthals on Gibraltar showed they had a varied diet, as do modern humans, who are among the most omnivorous animals on earth.

“Humans are promiscuous in our omnivory. We can eat almost anything and do eat almost anything, in prodigious quantities,” Tuross said.

The evolutionary forces that split humans from Neanderthals hundreds of thousands of years ago didn’t go away after the break. Mark Thomas, of University College, London, presented evidence about one of the strongest forces that has driven human evolution in Europe over the past 20,000 years: milk.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2008/12.11/11-past.html

Patrick Yeung
02-26-2009, 12:04 PM
I hear ya MOD. I dont know really see the benefits of not including milk in a 'paleo' diet. There isnt an added benefit of being so strict, other than you are limiting your choices, showing your self control.

Just because they may have not eaten it back then, dosent mean that if they had access to it, they wouldnt have eaten it. We have advanced technology, lets use it to our advantages.

Darryl Shaw
02-27-2009, 06:57 AM
Mike,

I think it would be more accurate to describe milk as a mesolithic food as that was the transitional period between the upper paleolithic and the neolithic eras. Still, the exact when and how of it is interesting area for conjecture so it's going to be interesting to see if forensic archeology can find the answer.

.................................................. ..............

Robert,

Interesting reads; very informative. Thanks for posting them.

There was one paragraph that caught my eye though -

Among the Hadza, the views ofwomen and their roles in society are similarly affected by cultunU perceptions of subsistence. For example, though the bulk of their diet consists of plant materials, the Hadza refer to themselves as hunters, a common trait among many huntergatherer groups. In fact, meat is considered the central part of their existence, one which they cannot imagine lacking (Woodburn 1968a). Hawkes (1991) suggests that this fact stems from the high visibility of hunting and the accompanying return to the camp with a large kill. This leads to a need to "show-off' absent from gathering. Because the acquisition of meat by hunting is a function wholly attributed to males, the relative worth of work performed by women becomes ideologically less important. This theory also explains why Hadza men will consistently hunt large game despite the fact that such goals necessitate many days without success (Hawkes 1991). The distribution of meat often is used to highlight differences as well. Particular portions of the animals belong solely to initiated males in group rituals and women who go near the meat will be punished; "mass rape is even said to be a possibility" (Gibson 1988: 177). This fact stands out strongly in light of the otherwise egalitarian distribution of meat which the system otherwise encourages. Apparently, however, it reinforces the nature of Hadza subsistence as based upon the male dominated hunt. Obviously, this factor in Hadza life plays a very large part in fashioning the society's attitudes towards women.

http://soar.wichita.edu/dspace/bitst...v28-p54-67.pdf

It's like I keep saying, the diets of hunter-gatherers are plant based and though meat is an essential part of the human diet it's importance is overemphasized due to social factors rather than any physiological need for a high protein intake. In fact in many African hunter-gatherer groups there was such an abundance of plant foods available that the men could even afford to take a week or two off from hunting if they felt like it.

Abundance
Despite a low annual rainfall (6 to 10 inches), Lee found in the Dobe area a "surprising abundance of vegetation". Food resources were "both varied and abundant", particularly the energy rich mangetti nut- "so abundant that millions of the nuts rotted on the ground each year for want of picking".15 The Bushman figures imply that one man's labour in hunting and gathering will support four or five people. Taken at face value, Bushman food collecting is more efficient than French farming in the period up to World War II, when more than 20 per cent of the population were engaged in feeding the rest. Confessedly, the comparison is misleading, but not as misleading as it is astonishing. In the total population of free-ranging Bushmen contacted by Lee, 61.3 per cent (152 of 248) were effective food producers; the remainder were too young or too old to contribute importantly In the particular camp under scrutiny, 65 per cent were "effectives". Thus the ratio of food producers to the general population is actually 3 :5 or 2:3. But, these 65 per cent of the people "worked 36 per cent of the time, and 35 per cent of the people did not work at all"! (15)
For each adult worker, this comes to about two and one - half days labour per week. (In other words, each productive individual supported herself or himself and dependents and still had 3 to 5 days available for other activities.) A "day's work" was about six hours; hence the Dobe work week is approximately 15 hours, or an average of 2 hours 9 minutes per day. All things considered, Bushmen subsistence labours are probably very close to those of native Australians.

Also like the Australians, the time Bushmen do not work in subsistence they pass in leisure or leisurely activity. One detects again that characteristic palaeolithic rhythm of a day or two on, a day or two off- the latter passed desultorily in camp. Although food collecting is the primary productive activity, Lee writes, "the majority of the people's time (four to five days per week) is spent in other pursuits, such as resting in camp or visiting other camps" (15):

"A woman gathers on one day enough food to feed her family for three days, and spends the rest of her time resting in camp, doing embroidery, visiting other camps, or entertaining;n; visitors from other camps. For each day at home, kitchen routines, such as cooking, nut cracking, collecting firewood, and fetching water, occupy one to three hours of her time. This rhythm of steady work and steady leisure maintained throughout the year. The hunters tend to work more frequently than the women, but their schedule uneven. It 'not unusual' for a man to hunt avidly for a week and then do no hunting at all for two or three weeks. Since hunting is an unpredictable business and subject to magical control, hunters sometimes experience a run of bad luck and stop hunting for a month or longer. During these periods, visiting, entertaining, and especially dancing are the primary activities of men.(16)"
The daily per-capita subsistence yield for the Dobe Bushmen was 2,140 calories. However, taking into account body weight, normal activities, and the age-sex composition of the Dobe population, Lee estimates the people require only 1,975 calories per capita. Some of the surplus food probably went to the dogs, who ate what the people left over. "The conclusion can be drawn that the Bushmen do not lead a substandard existence on the edge of starvation as has been commonly supposed."(15)

http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html

Mike ODonnell
02-27-2009, 09:53 AM
I hear ya MOD. I dont know really see the benefits of not including milk in a 'paleo' diet. There isnt an added benefit of being so strict, other than you are limiting your choices, showing your self control.

Just because they may have not eaten it back then, dosent mean that if they had access to it, they wouldnt have eaten it. We have advanced technology, lets use it to our advantages.

"Paleo" is a good guideline to tell people to use.....as I deal with everyday folk...if you tell them to eat strict Paleo....you would be lucky to get 75% Paleo in their eating....so it's almost like you have to tell people to eat 100% one way...just to try and get them to really eat 75% that way. In the end....I like Guinness...have cheese....eat rice...like pizza.....but I rotate foods and in no way are they daily staples. That and I am already lean and active enough....so I can "get away" with less adherance than someone who is overweight, non-active and probably has real insulin resistance issues. Plus I find IF to also help even things out somehow....but doesn't mean I still get back on the wheat or dairy bandwagon full time, as my body will tell me otherwise with increased mucus and joint pain.