List of ALL Harmful Plant Products

[Raw Kyle]

I think some people would argue that fish, shellfish and eggs are not really paleo. At any rate most people in paleolithic times didn't eat much of them; only coastal people or living near a lake affords any fish and catching fish is one of those things that doesn't jump out at you as much as hunting an animal you can see in plain site. And for eggs I would imagine that would be a rare thing to find and eat some eggs.

Basically I'm trying to say just because something wasn't impossible to get at in paleolithic times doesn't mean people actually ate it or much of it.

[Sully]

Seeds and stones usually are not consumed, though.  If something like an apple seed gets swallowed, it becomes encased in manure and spread to a new area where it might sprout.  That's just one of the symbiotic ways we plants and animals exist.  I'd like to see anyone chew up a peach stone without damaging his mouth.

Yeah, but most people chew up their almonds which are related to peaches and plums etc.

[Sully]

Lets all keep in mind that many fruits and vegetables have been breed to be bigger, sweeter, and more appealing to consumers. Even organic local produce.....

Some examples....

Large & Sweet Apple varieties (wild related variaties are less sweet more tart and smaller)

Huge Orange Carrots (i picked one in the wild and it was small white and the core was very tough to chew)

their are many more examples of "wild vs store/farm"...and the same goes with meats


So I would suggest finding fruits that seemed little changed or tampered with by man over the years. Also as far as what diet is best for you....Go with your genes and experiment wth things...eskimos are of course more adapted to a mainly carnivorous diet (they were short and stocky which helped retain heat in cold enviroments), the kung hunter gatherer tribe of africa however ate much more vegetation (roots, fruits, etc.). (they were tall slim with alot of body surface area which helped them stay cool in the hot enviroment they lived in) So basically humans can adapt to many different levels of meat/plant consumption and enviroments. People ate what edible vegetation and animals they could. But theres probably something that works best for you, mainly plant, 50/50 or mainly carnivorous. Just seek what works for you. You can't make up a diet and say it will work for everyone, human beings are toooo diverse. Nowadays you must experiment to figure out what works for you.

[Satya]

I think some people would argue that fish, shellfish and eggs are not really paleo. At any rate most people in paleolithic times didn't eat much of them; only coastal people or living near a lake affords any fish and catching fish is one of those things that doesn't jump out at you as much as hunting an animal you can see in plain site. And for eggs I would imagine that would be a rare thing to find and eat some eggs.

Is there any evidence at all for the claim that seafoods and eggs are not paleolithic?  I can admit that eggs are very seasonal, and seafoods somewaht as well.  But I think that I could produce evidence that people choose to live coastally for the most part, and that those that do live better than inland folks.  And, in fact, if you look at the National Geographic World Atlas, you will see evidence of coastal congregation.  And alas, these foods are found available in paleo times, so why would they be shunned?

Read Weston Price's book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration for details on how important seafoods have been to modern hunter-gatherers.

[boxcarguy07]

Yeah, I mean you gotta think that paleo man stayed near water at all times.

[Raw Kyle]

It's just more of an intelligence leap to fish than to hunt. Also you can never really know when people figured out that shrimp or oysters (especially) were ok to eat. And how to get them, that they weren't rocks.

Obviously some humans ate seafood, including shellfish, and eggs (both raw and cooked) before the Neolithic Period. I'm just saying that some cultures perhaps didn't, and those that did probably ate less than they did of land animals and started eating seafood and eggs later after they had been hunting land animals for many millenia.

You could make the argument (and it is made) that raw dairy is paleo because some cultures consumed it >10,000 years ago. But obviously most didn't; and again it's also a question of how much. If a Chinese Lord consumes one 50 year old egg a year starting at age 22 and only 5% of the population can afford them with that frequency, does that count? You get where I'm going right?

I would love to see (and DO) research on the subject, but I think we can all agree that although seafood is definitely not a Neolithic invention (for humans to eat) it is definitely LESS paleo than land meat. Same with eggs. Both in terms of when humans started consuming them and how much of their diet those items made.

The Price stuff is very interesting but it doesn't delve into what those people were eating 10,000 years before his visits. And I'm fairly certain even the people themselves don't have records of what their ancestors ate for the most part that long ago.

[boxcarguy07]

I would love to see (and DO) research on the subject, but I think we can all agree that although seafood is definitely not a Neolithic invention (for humans to eat) it is definitely LESS paleo than land meat. Same with eggs. Both in terms of when humans started consuming them and how much of their diet those items made.

Yes, I can definitely agree on this, although I wouldn't use the term "less paleo", but probably added later on and almost definitely less frequent. Land animals should definitely be the staple.

Of course, there are those that say paleo man ate mostly plants and that meat was an absolute rarity. But these people seem to be the ones attacking the very idea of a paleo diet in the first place.

For me, it's less about an idealistic sense of "our ancestors ate this way, so I'm going to eat this way", but rather what actually works and what actually brings about health, and getting rid of things that diminish health. It just so happens that the paleo lifestyle does that, but additions can be made as well IMO. For instance, I doubt paleo man fermented his food but I believe some of these foods can be rather health giving.

[wodgina]

Is there any evidence at all for the claim that seafoods and eggs are not paleolithic?  I can admit that eggs are very seasonal, and seafoods somewaht as well.  But I think that I could produce evidence that people choose to live coastally for the most part, and that those that do live better than inland folks.  And, in fact, if you look at the National Geographic World Atlas, you will see evidence of coastal congregation.  And alas, these foods are found available in paleo times, so why would they be shunned?

Read Weston Price's book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration for details on how important seafoods have been to modern hunter-gatherers.

Fish have hardly any fat on them and one would die of rabbit hunger without supplementing them with some other animal fat or grain. Even bears usually only eat the fatty skin of salmon. Catching fish also relies on boats,nets, weather etc. Many populations living off fish in tropical coastal communities would not exist in paleo times as they rely heavily on rice. I personally find these warm water fish (raw) tasteless and makes my gums hurt.

[Satya]

I really do think that evidence should rule the day, and it is absolutely ludicrous to think that fishing takes more brains than hunting.  It's the same thing and many animals do both.  It is very difficult to get enough vitamin d and iodine consuming only land animals, especially at higher latitudes for d.  Anyone can limit their diet any way they want.  But to suppose that paleo peoples didn't exploit plant foods, fish and eggs is just plain false.  There has never been any observed hunter-gatherers eating a total carnivorous diet.  Not that it isn't doable, or that some past groups did eat that way most of the time.  But to try and fit personal food choices to the actual dietary past is dishonest.  The vegans do the same thing, and I would rather be honest and base my life on science than guru worship, mysticism or anything like that.  That said, we all are unique.

[TylerDurden]

*Just noticed this thread and thought I ought to add a couple of points*

First, there is pretty sparse evidence from Palaeolithic times. One can reasonably state that meat-eating was more common than plant-eating, as current evidence in favour of this is in the majority, but there are some concerns re the dating and analysis of some evidence such as ancient hominid bones, so one can't state for certain that palaeos ate zero-carb or omnivorous diets - could even be a mixture of both, depending on the regions etc.

As regards, fish, again there's some controversy. There's the Aquatic Ape theory which states that we gained our intelligence/bigger brains, millions of years ago, from eating huge amounts of raw seafood rich in EFAs. On the other hand, one palaeo guru(Cordain?) claims that seafood-consumption only became a major part of the human diet c.20,000 years ago, with the first  evidence of some seafood being eaten  occurring c.300,000 years ago. But, again, there's so little evidence from so far back in time, that it's going to take major scientific advances re dating and the finding of fossils, before one can reasonably conclude when seafood was introduced.

I generally use Palaeo-theory only as a guideline, given the lack of data, in general. In my own case, I can only say that I don't thrive as well if I don't include some raw seafood in my diet - just meats/organ-meats and fats for my animal-food didn't work for me, whether on zero-carb or otherwise. On the other hand, I've tried an all-raw-seafood diet and didn't do well on that, either.

[Raw Kyle]

The shellfish thing I think is self-evident; of course they were around in paleo times but they were obviously less a part of anyone's diet than land animals. Even today if you had a nice piece of land on the coast, several hundred acres, I would imagine just naturally you would hunt more land animals than fish/shellfish because it's more reward per effort and requires less tools.

I don't know of any cultures consuming dairy in paleolithic times myself but it does have a long history in Mongolia (camel dairy) and probably other places. I would not be surprised either way, whether it was consumed pre or post Neolithic, but it seems the possibility is there and hasn't been disproven. That's really the idea here is that saying dairy is absolutely only Neolithic in every civilization requires more burden of proof than saying perhaps it wasn't. I agree though it's more likely that dairy is generally or completely Neolithic.

[TylerDurden]

The shellfish thing I think is self-evident; of course they were around in paleo times but they were obviously less a part of anyone's diet than land animals. Even today if you had a nice piece of land on the coast, several hundred acres, I would imagine just naturally you would hunt more land animals than fish/shellfish because it's more reward per effort and requires less tools.

I don't know of any cultures consuming dairy in paleolithic times myself but it does have a long history in Mongolia (camel dairy) and probably other places. I would not be surprised either way, whether it was consumed pre or post Neolithic, but it seems the possibility is there and hasn't been disproven. That's really the idea here is that saying dairy is absolutely only Neolithic in every civilization requires more burden of proof than saying perhaps it wasn't. I agree though it's more likely that dairy is generally or completely Neolithic.

You'd be surprised how much shellfish one can pick up on an isolated beach free of human interference.  I believe "wodgina" mentioned how his own local beaches are absolutely covered in them. One should also remember that hunter-gatherers tend to view all sorts of things as food which modern peoples never would(for example, I eat raw limpets when I'm on the Italian coast, but these don't appear on most(if not all) Western menus in restaurants. Granted, though, the migrating herds of bison would have perhaps been easier to deal with.

Another point is that, at least in the Late Palaeolithic, the various peoples had at least rafts and perhaps even boats - otherwise the Australian Aborigines couldn't have reached  Australia c.40,000 years ago - AFAIK, there was no land-bridge connecting Australia to Southeast Asia at the time.

As regards dairy, it's been suggested by a few Fallonites et al, that dairy might have been consumed in the Palaeolithic. This seems unlikely as cattle, according to online sources, were only domesticated at around 8,000 BC, well into the Neolithic era. Some have suggested that hunters in Palaeolithic times must have drunk the milk from the udders of slain wild cows(ie female aurochs), but the amounts of milk left in udders after death  is very small - indeed, in mammals, milk-production is stimulated via  hormones in response to the suckling effect of the relevant infant, so there's no need to store milk in the breast-area.

[wodgina]

It's true, I collected 0.5 kilo of shellfish meat (weighed when I got home, without shell) in 30 minutes during the local shell fishing season where I live. All I used was a snorkel set and screw driver although I could of done it without a snorkel set and used a rock instead of a screwdriver.

The shellfish are abundant owing to a 6 hour fishing season and strict laws and heavy fines if caught fishing out of season.

[Raw Kyle]

Do you guys think it's feasible to imagine a coastal paleolithic civilization living on as much seafood as land meat? How seasonal is seafood anyway? And of course this discounts the non-coastal peoples as having significant seafood in their diets as well.

[Sully]

For instance, I doubt paleo man fermented his food but I believe some of these foods can be rather health giving.

I'm sure paleo man found fermented fruit. The otjher day I was picking cherries from a tree and I ate a few fermented ones. They actually tasted better.

[Sully]

As regards dairy, it's been suggested by a few Fallonites et al, that dairy might have been consumed in the Palaeolithic. This seems unlikely as cattle, according to online sources, were only domesticated at around 8,000 BC, well into the Neolithic era.

What about other animals. I was watching a story on the black plag and they said mongals drank horse milk. Even though that too was into the neolithic period.

[TylerDurden]

The only animals domesticated in the Palaeolithic were dogs(c.15,000 BC, 5,000 years into the Palaeolithic era).

*Forgot - sheep and goats were domesticated right at the transition between the Neolithic and the Palaeolithic:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication#Approximate_dates_and_locations_of_original_domestication

Anyway, until the Neolithic came round, one can safely assume that the only dairy drunk was other's milk.

[Satya]

Early hominid utilisation of fish resources and implications for seasonality and behaviour
Stewart, KM
Journal of Human Evolution [J. HUM. EVOL.]. Vol. 27, no. 1-3, pp. 229-245. 1994.

While research into the diet and subsistence of early hominids has focussed primarily on medium to large size mammals, modern ethnographic and dietary evidence suggests that other food sources are of equal or greater importance in hunter-gatherer diets, particularly in seasonally stressful times of year. Fish is examined in this paper as an alternative food source for early hominids. Nutritional, ecological and ethnographic evidence indicates that fish would be a seasonally available, nutritious and easy to procure alternative food source for early hominids, particularly during periods when other food sources may be of poor quality. Carnivores and non-human primates rely on fish as a seasonal resource, and archaeological findings also document the importance of fish for Late Pleistocene hominid groups. Fish remains are associated with many early hominid sites, and five sites at Olduvai Gorge are examined here in detail. The patterns of fish exploitation seen in Late Pleistocene archaeological sites are manifested in three of the Olduvai Gorge sites, making a strong, although not absolute, case for early hominid fish procurement. The implications for early hominid behaviour of fish procurement are several, and include timing of the early hominid seasonal round to exploit spawning or stranded fish, and group size larger than the nuclear family unit, with greater social interaction. Further investigation must also be conducted on the possible differences in procurement strategy between the hominid species at FLKNN (Homo habilis) and BK (presumed H. erectus).
_____________________________________________

Oceans, Islands, and Coasts: Current Perspectives on the Role of the Sea in Human Prehistory
Authors: Jon M. Erlandson a; Scott M. Fitzpatrick b
Affiliations:   
a Department of Anthropology and Museum of Natural and Cultural History, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA

b Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
DOI: 10.1080/15564890600639504
Published in:  The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, Volume 1, Issue 1 July 2006 , pages 5 - 32

Abstract
Archaeological studies of island and coastal societies have advanced significantly over the years. Long marginalized as relatively recent developments, coastal, maritime, and island adaptations are now recognized as having a much longer and more complex history. Consequently, the archaeology of island and coastal societies has become increasingly relevant to a variety of important anthropological and historical topics. In this paper, we discuss some current issues in island and coastal archaeology, including: (1) the antiquity of coastal adaptations and maritime migrations; (2) variations in marine or coastal productivity; (3) the development of specialized maritime technologies and capabilities; (4) underwater archaeology and drowned terrestrial landscapes; (5) cultural responses to insularity, isolation, and circumscription; (6) cultural contacts and historical processes; (7) human impacts and historical ecology in island and coastal ecosystems; and (8.) the conservation and management of island and coastal sites.
____________________________

http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=881004
________________________

The idea that fishing is somehow new is an androcentric remnant of the past.

[wodgina]

Bad Bad Bananas!

I wondered why bananas made under my chin itchy (a sure sign of an allergy)
Bananas can give you a high dose of histidine and histimine, they also contain pyridoxine glycosides which are B6 blockers.

This was taken from the the website Plant Poisions and Rotten stuff.

http://blog.plantpoisonsandrottenstuff.info/2006/09/24/gone-bananas/

I've also heard that a lot of people have trouble digesting bananas, I know my brother can only eat green bananas.

[Sully]

Bad Bad Bananas!


I've also heard that a lot of people have trouble digesting bananas, I know my brother can only eat green bananas.

I would never eat a green banana, oh well, I stopped eating bananas anyway, only eating hand picked vegetation and locally grown foods .

[Dan]

The idea that fishing is somehow new is an androcentric remnant of the past.

Considering I'm from a place where there is almost no fishing, I know there are certain things about that I would question, but I can certainly see people at almost any stage of evolution eating fish.

But what does that have to do with the dudes? 



I guess this is a little off topic, sorry.

[Satya]

Considering I'm from a place where there is almost no fishing, I know there are certain things about that I would question, but I can certainly see people at almost any stage of evolution eating fish.

But what does that have to do with the dudes? 

Hi Dan,

Thanks for hitting me up on this very controversial statement.

Bias in science is nothing new.  For instance, the dates for anthropogenic fire and language in hominids were originally placed much further back in time, as the idea of descending from lower primates was not very pleasant in the early 20th century (and still causes major discomfort in some people).  Also, there is this androcentric notion that women developed rounded hips to attract mates, all the while ignoring the fact that the evolving bigger brain of the growing fetus required a larger space for birth! 

The same is true when considering fishing, I believe.  Even bears and cats can fish, so it's importance is often downplayed when more macho pursuits such as hunting large game are concerned, especially since for smaller fish and shellfish, not much in the way of technology is required.  Or is it?  Fish are in another medium; a bear can catch salmon with his claw.  Women may well have gathered the shellfish and other tidal dwellers near the shores of oceans, rivers and lakes, originally.  Of course, a shore is required for fishing. 

I would have to look into that further, but I do know that Weston Price found that even far inland tribes would go to the coast, gather/fish and dry seafoods for the nutrients they contain.

[Raw Kyle]

Also, there is this androcentric notion that women developed rounded hips to attract mates, all the while ignoring the fact that the evolving bigger brain of the growing fetus required a larger space for birth!

I thought it was that men became attracted to this feature during evolution as women who had it had more healthy offspring. Usually animals are attracted to features that have a purpose, stuff like peacock feathers is not the norm from what I can tell, stuff with just a sexual purpose.

[wodgina]

Aren't the hips and breasts where a girls omega 3's are stored? I also saw a story where curvy girls were claimed to be more intelligent...sexy and smart!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-493004/Sexy-AND-smart-Why-hourglass-figure-means-brains-beauty.html

Abdomin fat = Omega 6
Hip fat = omega 3

omega 3's are also stored in mens hips too. I've notice fat moved to my upper body more and away from my stomach and I think Craig mentioned something like this too. Ladies?

[Satya]

I thought it was that men became attracted to this feature during evolution as women who had it had more healthy offspring. Usually animals are attracted to features that have a purpose, stuff like peacock feathers is not the norm from what I can tell, stuff with just a sexual purpose.

Right, purpose tends to bring attraction, attraction does not always give purpose.  Maybe.  What do you think of that statement?