Home   |   Contact   |   Help

Get Our Newsletter
Sign up for our free newsletter to get training tips and stay up to date on Catalyst Athletics, and get a FREE issue of the Performance Menu journal.

Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Nutrition > Paleo Diet

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-21-2006, 07:25 PM   #11
Tony Ferous
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 220

Is the 'primal diet' worth a read Scotty?
Tony Ferous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2006, 08:07 PM   #12
Andew Cattermole
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 41

Originally Posted by Robb Wolf View Post
I love that the Japanese diet is portrayed as being largely vegetarian.
I'm game for dinner wiht you folks anytime!
Yeah I never understood that,Japanese people love there meats and seafood.Strangely texture in food is a big thing,which means they eat every part of just about every animal.Tofu is consumed heavily but I'm yet to find Soy Milk or Rice Milk in anyone's daily diet despite what people over here tell me.
Then there is the wonder food of Nato (fermented Soy Bean)
Andew Cattermole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2006, 04:15 PM   #13
Scotty Hagnas
Scotty Hagnas's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 126

I like the recipes that the "Primal Diet" contains. I just recently got the book though, and haven't had time to finish it. (Nov. and Dec. always crush me, as my day/night job is at the post office.)

Not too excited about his recomendations to consume most veggies juiced, nor his feeding schedule of like 12 meals a day. Constantly elevated baseline insulin leels, anyone?

It's worth checking out, though.

Scotty Hagnas
CrossFit Portland
Scotty Hagnas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2006, 10:34 AM   #14
Elliot Royce
Senior Member
Elliot Royce's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 317

Not to put a downer on this but remember that you can get intestinal parasites through eating raw meat or fish. Besides pork, where everyone knows you have to cook it, other meats can contain parasites. My wife got one when she was younger and you may lose your taste for raw meat when you find you have a 20 ft tapeworm. Of course, for losing weight, it can't be beat.

I believe many of the cultures that eat raw meat also combine it with marinades or other techniques that minimize the chance of infection by parasites. Not to mention that paleo man was probably riddled by parasites.


Family/work safe but pretty gross: talks about coughing up your tapeworm, etc.

Also, I believe that pregnant women are particularly at risk from toxoplasmosis which commonly comes from cat boxes but I believe may also be directly transferable from raw food (not sure but better check with the doctor).
Elliot Royce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2006, 02:55 AM   #15
Tony Ferous
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 220

Fair point Elliot, some of the descirptions on that site are pretty scarey!

Looks like including a variety of spicey condiments with the meal is important, like ginger and wasabi with sashimi and maybe garlic, hot pepper, mustard with meat.

Tony Ferous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2006, 07:30 AM   #16
Frank Needham
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 543

Elliot touches on a point that is ALWAYS obscured when PALEO MAN is being discussed. If his diet was so hot and it was so good for him then why did he only live to the ripe old age of 30? I know, I know, you're going to tell me that there are so many other factors. Believe me, I've thought it through and I just don't buy it. If the basis of selection is the justification for the continuance of the specie then it seems that agriculture has won out already. The fact that humans are basically lazy has not changed in the last 10k years either. If Paleo dude had access to mega carbs he probably would have had a gut like H Simpson and Paleo dudette would have had a kiester like Large Marge the same as today.
"Lack of sleep makes cowards of us all."
Frank Needham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2006, 08:07 AM   #17
Scott Kustes
Senior Member
Scott Kustes's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 1,048
Default asd

Frank, here is something I've written prior. Looking at the lifespan to determine optimal diet is impossible when there are so many factors.

Of course, a mention of a Paleolithic Diet brings up the argument that “our ancestors only lived to be 35 years old.” This argument assumes that early death was a result of subpar health. In dismantling this argument, we should first recognize that 35 years was the average life expectancy for our ancestors. If you recall from statistics class, an average is approximately the middle of a range of numbers, assuming that there are no extreme outliers (which in the case of age would be centenarians). So that alone means that we’re dealing with a range of approximately 0 to 70 years old.

The 20th century saw vast improvements in life expectancy which are most certainly not attributable to improvements in what we eat. If we look back just a little over a century ago to 1900, we see that average life expectancy at birth was only 47 years old.51 Looking around, it is obvious that we aren’t any healthier, yet we are living, on average, 50% longer. What gives?

The first answer to that dilemma is medical treatment, which enables people to survive things that would’ve killed them just a century ago, not to mention 50,000 years ago. For instance, today we can survive gunshots, knife wounds, falls from height, degenerative diseases, and broken bones due to medications and excellent surgical techniques. Parasites and infections that would’ve killed 200 or 2,000 or 20,000 years ago are now easily treated by doctors. A broken leg would’ve made a person a target to rival tribes as well as predators searching for dinner. Today, humans are not prey. The second answer is sanitation. It wasn’t too long ago that we lived amongst our waste, which is a breeding ground for the parasites and bacteria that we can so easily kill these days.

There is also a huge difference in the lifestyle led by hunter-gatherers and that led by modern Westernized humans. Basically, no one in modern culture has to worry about their dinner baring its claws and teeth and being turned into dinner themselves. Hunter-gatherers fought daily with animals that were bigger, stronger, and better equipped for killing than are humans with our lack of claws and fangs. Today, we go to the grocery store and pick up our steak or roast. Even modern hunters have little worry of being killed by their prey with their high-powered rifles and shotguns. Today, few people in modern societies have to worry about starvation, yet it was an ever-present reality amongst indigenous peoples.

We must also look at the infant mortality rate. While I don’t have data for 50,000 years ago, a few assumptions make it easy to see how medical improvements have vastly increased our average age by improving the number of people surviving to age 5 and beyond. In the year 2000, 99.3% of all babies reached age 1; in 1900, only 87.5% of babies reached age 1.52 In 2000, about 99.2% of all babies reached age 5; in 1900, that percentage was only 81.8%. Seeing the huge leaps in just 100 years, it isn’t out of the question to assume that (conservatively) at least 25% of all babies born in the Paleolithic era did not reach age 5. Given that, we have to assume that at least that many reached beyond age 35. In fact, looking at modern day hunter-gatherer tribes we see that many of them reach beyond age 60, well into old-age.

Finally, there is the argument that age 35 was simply too early to acquire the diseases such as cancer and heart disease. This also holds no water as Dr. Cordain points out in his article discussing our ancestral life expectancy.53 Dr. Cordain says it better than I ever could, so I offer this quote: “While chronic degenerative diseases generally produce mortality in later life, they begin much earlier, often in childhood. This allows comparison between age-matched younger members of industrial and technologically primitive societies. Biomarkers of developing abnormality such as obesity, rising blood
pressure, non-obstructive coronary atherosclerosis, and insulin resistance are common among the former, but rare in the latter. Measurements of muscular strength and aerobic power reveal similar discrepancies, again favoring individuals whose lives more closely resemble the ancestral pattern. About 20% of hunter-gatherers reach age 60 or beyond, but even in this age bracket, individuals from foraging and other technologically primitive cultures appear almost completely free from manifestations of most chronic degenerative diseases (osteoarthritis is an exception).” We can see that these diseases do not occur overnight; one is not cancer-free one day and cancerous the next.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf, Page 35
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf, Page 26
Agriculture has won for one reason - quantity of calories. Natural selection works on "most" not necessarily "optimal". Agriculture, for all of its faults, has allowed the human race to proliferate beyond anyone's wildest imaginations. Agriculture is the only way of supporting 6 billion people. If fewer people starve to death, at a time when fewer people are dying from animal attacks due to improved security and villages, you will see a proliferation of people. But the archeological record shows vast decreases in human health at the same time. Agriculture has produced many humans at the cost of healthy humans.

Fitness Spotlight
Scott Kustes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2006, 03:35 PM   #18
Jeremy Jones
Senior Member
Jeremy Jones's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 181

I just made a connection with what Scott posted and with some info contained in "On Combat."

Grossman states something like we are living in the most violent times - in recorded history. It is true that murder rates have gone down significantly in the last few decades, but the truth is that violent crimes have gone up significantly. If it weren't for our advances in medicine, the homicide rates would be through the roof.

So related to what Scott said. . . we may be negating the deaths, but we have not actually done anything to solve the problem.
-Jeremy Jones
Jeremy Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2006, 04:00 PM   #19
Elliot Royce
Senior Member
Elliot Royce's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 317

I don't believe that the homicide rate per capita is anywhere near historical levels. I don't have the information in front of me but I can recall reading that even Victorian England was much more violent than our days. Is your source referring to per capita rates or just absolute numbers? Almost any quantum relating to human beings in aggregate is larger today given the vastly greater population.

The Paleo debate continues. In a sense, it doesn't matter what happened to our ancestors in neolithic times as long as the Paleo diet works for people today. I don't think there are any certainties when it comes to most diets.
Elliot Royce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2006, 10:22 AM   #20
Robb Wolf
Senior Member
Robb Wolf's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,444

On the parasite topic:
This is also part of why traditionally eaten raw meats are cut very thinly. One should inspect the meat through a light source (called "candling") for eggs and other goodies. Keep in mind that our ancestors were almost certainly battling parasitic infections. Dr's Eades talk about this in Protein Power Life Plan, as does our own Greg Everett with regards to potentially unhealthy levels of iron.

Now the topic of Paleo longevity was well addressed by Scott K but I'll add that average lifespan, stature and dental health all suffered with the advent of agriculture. Infant mortality greatly increased which should beg the question then: How did our global population increase with the advent of agriculture? Not only was a greater caloric density available but birth spacing shortened from an average of 4.5 years for hunter gatherers to 12 months for agriculturalists. Elevated insulin blocks the contraceptive effects of breast feeding, thus allowing for much more frequent births.

This is off topic but if you start talking population and sustainability it appears that your best bet is to industrialize and educate your population. This will encourages higher yield agricultural practices (whether paleo-esque or not) AND it leads to dramatically decreased birth rates (bad secular humanists not wanting 6 kids!)

The Neo-Cons think this will lead to Islam overrunning Europe and the destruction of The West. I guess time will tell.
"Survival will be neither to the strongest of the species, nor to the most intelligent, but to those most adaptable to change."
C. Darwin

Robb's Blog
Robb Wolf is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Receive emails with training tips, news updates, events info, sale notifications and more.

Submit your question to be answered by Greg Everett in the Performance Menu or on the website

Submit Your Question

Catalyst Athletics is a USA Weightlifting team of competitive Olympic-style weightlifters with multiple national team medals.

Read More
Olympic Weightlifting Book
Catalyst Athletics
Contact Us
Products & Services
Weightlifting Team
Performance Menu
Magazine Home
Subscriber Login
About the Program
Workout Archives
Exercise Demos
Text Only
Instructional Content
Exercise Demos
Video Gallery
Free Articles
Free Recipes
Recommended Books & DVDs
Olympic Weightlifting Guide
Discussion Forum
Weight Conversion Calculator