What exactly are paleolithic forms of carbs?

[alphagruis]

That's the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen raw fruit/carb problems suggested as possibly solely due to diabetes.

This is not the idea I tried to convey, actually. I did not claim that "solely" people with T2DB have problems with even raw unprocessed carbs. I just said that among those who suffer from carb intolerance "possibly" are those who have genetic background that favors T2DB or preDB. There are probably many others, of course.

[alphagruis]

Sure both plants and animals have both changed drastically from paleo times but I agree with van that the nutrient profile of meat for most, if not all animals we eat today should be very similar to those of the past. The fruit on other hand has changed more drastically with respect to its nutrient profile and is much bigger, available year-round, more calorie dense, has more fructose with a lot of it changing even in the last 50 years. Perhaps someone can give a fuller more detailed unbiased argument here.

I like the link of the bushfood in Australia I posted earlier as vegetation that was much more similar to how it was in paleo times.

I've never had the opportunity to compare beef and elk, as suggested by van, but I've compared beef and deer. I find that beef is definitely "much easier" to eat raw than deer and contains actually much more fat. Notice by the way that in traditional cooked recipes fat from pork or beef is added to deer to make it taste much better and so neolithic people on standard diets are perhaps as addicted to excessive fat as to excessive suger . This is somewhat akin to too sweet man grown fruit "easier to eat" than wild fruit. In other words there is a tendency to eat much more domesticated than wild raw meat or fruit.

By the way the overall ratio of fat to protein in wild terrestrial mammals is in fact never the appropriate 70-80 to 20-30% for human "ZC" diet and this is a major reason IMO why our ancestors were most likely in general not "ZC" for mere ecological reasons (except inuits who based their diet on sea mammals where the ratio fat to protein is quite appropriate).

The main problem I see with man grown fruit as compared to meat, even man raised one, is that it lacks completely some major basic nutriments and nevertheless provides a lot of sugar and thus calories and this is certainly dangerous if overeaten because it is filling and thus prevents eating enough more nutricious food.

If you want to re-introduce some plant food into your diet, PaleoDonk, I suggest once every while  ( as I do often around noon or so) a meal made of leafy weggies such as corn salad, dandelion or chicory with virgin olive oil seasoning (and a bit garlic, sea salt and herbs if you like it). This provides interesting nutrients (known and unknown) with most calories in the form of fat from oil and very little sugar.      

[Ioanna]

phelps is young enough and has an amazingly swimmingly gifted body type and size (not undermining his talent, but he is genetically blessed... his first olympics he had among the worst technique i've scene in an olympic swimmer and still came out way ahead, his genetics certainly help)... he abuses several substances too, does that make them healthy or even ok?

has anyone else come to determine something along the lines of yon's response?.. that is a list of tolerated carbs/amounts?

couldn't one eating organs have as much as 30% carbs wo consuming any vegetation?  any testimonials to this?

[alphagruis]

 Phelps is just still young enough with good genetic background.

I had apparently no health problems too when I was in my twenties...

We are endowed in fact with general mechanisms that are capable to eliminate neolithic cooked food toxins as well as other toxins. Heat generated toxins are also formed at room temperature in very tiny quantities and we must be basically adapted to handle these small quantities since we were on a raw diet for millions of years. When we switch on SAD after weaning these mechanisms first work very hard as best as they can usually for a few decades but they are then progressively overwhelmed as we age because they are not "designed" from an evolutionary point of view to handle that much toxins.   

Depending on genetic background these toxins then gradualy accumulate in the organism and perturb more and more its biochemistry and cause increasing more or less irreversible damage. This might explain why health problems appear progressively with age more or less rapidly and in a form that depend on genetic background and specific lifestyle.

[Paleo Donk]

Thanks again alpha, though I think your argument is not of your usual keen perceptive unbiased scientific assesment of the situation but leaning more towards a man of straw. From what I know humans ate some amount of bone marrow and brain, both sources rich in fat and this could probably make up a big chunk of the calorie content that is lacking in the muslce meat. Also, we don't know what percentage of the different types of animals we ate. Wooly mammoths and aurochs are probably fatty enough to get 70-80+% calories from fat without going for the marrow or brains.

Greens also provide almost no source of calories as they usually are around 95% water and contain around 20 calories per 100g. The fruit would similaly be not as calorie denese with more space taken up by seeds.  Other primates seem to do find foraging vegetation so I suppose its possible that we did the same  but I dont see that happening when we moved out of the tropics and especially during ice ages/winter.

Thanks for the recommendation on the greens, I will add those in sooner than later.

[William]

Notice by the way that in traditional cooked recipes fat from pork or beef is added to deer to make it taste much better and so neolithic people on standard diets are perhaps as addicted to excessive fat as to excessive sugar .

Not possible to be addicted to fat, as it is an essential nutrient, and eating too much make us nauseated.
Sugar/carbs are not only not essential, there is nothing to stop us from eating too much.

By the way the overall ratio of fat to protein in wild terrestrial mammals is in fact never the appropriate 70-80 to 20-30% for human "ZC" diet and this is a major reason IMO why our ancestors were most likely in general not "ZC" for mere ecological reasons (except inuits who based their diet on sea mammals where the ratio fat to protein is quite appropriate).

Those who were free to choose left the lean meat for the dogs and other carrion eaters, so our ecological function is to provide food for them.

[alphagruis]

Thanks again alpha, though I think your argument is not of your usual keen perceptive unbiased scientific assesment of the situation but leaning more towards a man of straw. From what I know humans ate some amount of bone marrow and brain, both sources rich in fat and this could probably make up a big chunk of the calorie content that is lacking in the muslce meat. Also, we don't know what percentage of the different types of animals we ate. Wooly mammoths and aurochs are probably fatty enough to get 70-80+% calories from fat without going for the marrow or brains.

The fat to protein ratio I invoked includes brain and bone marrow so it seems to me that my ecological argument is in fact a very serious one againt ubiquitous "ZC" during paleotimes. Only inuits with their see mammals had the right environment to be VLC. Just remember the problem of 'rabbit starvation" for natives relying on land mammals.

To see my point just imagine what would happen today if more than a tiny minority of people were to switch to "ZC". Where do you think all the necessary animal fat might be produced or come from? Lex can buy relatively cheap fat from Slanker's a priori because other customers buy the remaining lean meat.     

[William]

The fat to protein ratio I invoked includes brain and bone marrow so it seems to me that my ecological argument is in fact a very serious one againt ubiquitous "ZC" during paleotimes.

Only if you ignore the notion that humans were wardens of the earth, and accepted responsibility for the welfare of all life on earth, including carrion eaters. IMHO this is the reason why the paleolithic age lasted so long, and why so many feel that ours is near the end.


 

Only inuit with their sea mammals had the right environment to be VLC. Just remember the problem of 'rabbit starvation" for natives relying on land mammals.

You are denying free will, in that we need not eat the whole animal, and assuming poverty, which is a neolithic phenomenon caused by overpopulation.

To see my point just imagine what would happen today if more than a tiny minority of people were to switch to "ZC". Where do you think all the necessary animal fat might be produced or come from?     

The city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada runs its buses on biodiesel made of beef fat. It follows that scarcity of fat is politically contrived.

[PaleoPhil]

This is not the idea I tried to convey, actually. I did not claim that "solely" people with T2DB have problems with even raw unprocessed carbs. I just said that among those who suffer from carb intolerance "possibly" are those who have genetic background that favors T2DB or preDB. There are probably many others, of course.

Oh, sure there are countless chronic diseases and syndromes that reportedly do better on VLC/ZC/Carnivore. Diabetes is just one of many. I lost track of all the various health issues that improved from drastic carb reduction--raw as well as cooked--just in myself!

[alphagruis]

Only if you ignore the notion that humans were wardens of the earth, and accepted responsibility for the welfare of all life on earth, including carrion eaters. IMHO this is the reason why the paleolithic age lasted so long, and why so many feel that ours is near the end.

I do not ignore this possibility. I just doubt very much that your idyllic picture comes close to the truth.

If it was true that our ancestors were wardens of the earth, how do you explain that they were eventually quite unable to prevent the neolithic revolution and relevant catastrophe. Bad wardens, our ancestors

You are denying free will, in that we need not eat the whole animal, and assuming poverty, which is a neolithic phenomenon caused by overpopulation.

I don't think so. Free will is not enough when drastic environmental constraints are at work. As they were usually in paleotimes. Rabbit starvation is certainly not just a myth.

The city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada runs its buses on biodiesel made of beef fat. It follows that scarcity of fat is politically contrived.

Just junk fat from grainfed beef. In other words a form of oil, the one necessary to grow the grain. Just a way to limit wasting of oil actually. Absolutely no future, we will eventually run out of oil.

[William]

If it was true that our ancestors were wardens of the earth, how do you explain that they were eventually quite unable to prevent the neolithic revolution and relevant catastrophe. Bad wardens, our ancestors

They were unable to prevent the close approach of a planet-sized comet - I think Velikovsky and McCanney have it right.

[PaleoPhil]

I do not ignore this possibility. I just doubt very much that your idyllic picture comes close to the truth.

If it was true that our ancestors were wardens of the earth, how do you explain that they were eventually quite unable to prevent the neolithic revolution and relevant catastrophe. Bad wardens, our ancestors
...

I agree emphatically with Alphagruis. One of the unpopular realities that many people of all dietary stripes seem to have difficulty coming to terms with, is that our ancient ancestors, apparently starting with Homo erectus and continuing to this day, engaged in wanton destruction of other species (both prey and competitor predators) in a carnage unprecedented in the whole history of the planet. Given that hominids began exterminating whole species of animals once they mastered hunting technologies and techniques and continued to do so through most of human history and still do so today, it's unlikely that early Paleolithic humans were particularly concerned with being wardens of the earth. Can you imagine a H. erectus even considering it, much less enforcing it, given that verbal language hadn't even developed? I think the conservation-minded approach likely developed (like most things) out of necessity, once most of the megafauna were exterminated. It's an approach I advocate, but I don't think it was common in the early or middle Paleolithic.

Human history is drenched in blood and we are literally the products of that blood. If human beings have an original sin it is probably the annhilation of countless other species of animals and plants. It's time that we as a species grew up and came to grips with that and stopped pretending, as many vegans are wont to do, that we are a pristine pure species that tasted nary a drop of blood and never harmed as much as a fly and were perfect wardens of the environment until evil modernity arose. I realize that this is an unpopular conclusion (especially with the afore-mentioned vegans and Paleo utopians like brother William), but it seems inescapable to me based on the evidence, and winning popularity contests has never been my goal.

[miles]

Alphagruis, wasn't rabbit-starvation a modern thing? From those labourers who were fed only rabbit? They didn't choose what to eat, they were workers and this was the food they were given.

[William]

I agree emphatically with Alphagruis. One of the unpopular realities that many people of all dietary stripes seem to have difficulty coming to terms with, is that our ancient ancestors, apparently starting with Homo erectus and continuing to this day, engaged in wanton destruction of other species (both prey and competitor predators) in a carnage unprecedented in the whole history of the planet.

So you favour the steady state hypotheses of dinosaur historians, in spite of the abundant evidence that massive extinctions were caused by unavoidable cataclysms.
I take the position that if our ancestors had been stupid enough to hunt their food to extinction, they would not have had anything to eat, and themselves suffered the boom and bust population cycles of predatory animals.
Looks like you've been infected with td's "nasty brutish and short" attitude towards paleoman.

Human history is drenched in blood and we are literally the products of that blood. If human beings have an original sin it is probably the annhilation of countless other species of animals and plants.

Wrong. No evidence until the beginning of the neolithic, and the bloody neolithic is because the human race has parasites.

[alphagruis]

Alphagruis, wasn't rabbit-starvation a modern thing? From those labourers who were fed only rabbit? They didn't choose what to eat, they were workers and this was the food they were given.

Well I'm afraid rabbit starvation was not just a modern thing.

As PaleoPhil clearly explains our paleo ancestors most likely exterminated first the big game so that they had to resort to smaller and smaller preys with less and less fat.... and possibly finally to agriculture. There is clear evidence for this for instance in the whole mediterranean area.

Unpopular conclusion indeed but inescapable, I agree with PaleoPhil and definitely disagree with the idyllic view of William .  

[William]

ancestors most likely exterminated first the big game so that they had to resort to smaller and smaller preys with less and less fat.... and possibly finally to agriculture. There is clear evidence for this for instance in the whole mediterranean area.

This is a good description of the neolithic - note the extinction of the aurochs, caused by parasite-ridden starving farmers.

It's common to imagine that the paleolithic environment was the same as the neolithic, but it was not the same.

[KD]

One thing I can't figure out about the modern use of the phrase "rabbit starvation" is that even lean beef has at least 30% fat which is far higher then what many people eat as a % daily (although I suppose less than the majority). Is the rabbit starvation more due to the excess protein if the meat was the only calorie source? the RS from what I've read is quicker death than fasting. I remember reading that Christian Bale for The Machinist just ate a can of tuna a day or something. If someone was traveling with just jerky, how long would it take to exhibit symptoms, and would this be avoided by having a minor carb source like berries or plant fat source?

[miles]

Just make jerky with fat, or 'pemmican jerky'... and C.Bale ate a can of tuna and an apple. Rabbit starvation is from too much protein to fat/carbs ratio... And lean beef doesn't 'always have at least 30% fat', not in the retail cuts which are what is available to us. You get some with trace fat, 5%, 10%... 30% would be very high for a retail cut at least where most people live.

[Paleo Donk]

Yes, lean beef usually does have around 30% fat. Miles, you are not looking at it from a calorie point of view. Lean beef is usually at least 5% fat by weight, 20% protein. This would put fat, by calories of 5% beef to be around 30%.

KD,

I can tell you from my own adventure that when I was eating leaner cuts of beef for the first two months of going raw paleo with no carb intake that I was hungry quite often. I did not do this on purpose, just made a mistake not taking into account how much leaner grass-fed beef is. I was eating between 40-60% of calories from fat which apparently not enough. Amino acids are all converted to glucose or fat for energy after a certain point but not in a very efficient manner as gluconeogenesis is a destructive process that wastes a good deal of energy. For whatever reason, this turnover to glucose or fat isn't fast or good enough to optimally alleviate the body from hunger. Also, the liver can only provide 400g of glucose a day from amino acids so is limited by this amount.

I have since upped fat to greater than 70% with a huge relief from hunger.

[KD]

Sorry Miles, I think we had this confusion before. I meant calories from fat as a %. It probably is true that it is less than the nutrition databases being grass-fed, but I was just trying to get across that it supplies more calories from fat -even as a percentage-than low fatters eat.

So I guess the problem in rabbit starvation is more those trying to eat and eat of the lean and having the excess protein, not someone who just underrate on food in general and basically just ate some very lean meat exclusively or with minor additions of other wild foods.

PD: At the moment I havn't done the exact calculations but I eat less than a lb a day of lean and seem to be hitting over 3000 cal. although I do also consume eggs  and juices which have protein. I don't seem to get hungry, quite the opposite actually, but I do have very bubbly urine, which from your other post seems linked to excess protein?

Miles: I think I'll try to make some jerky successfully and see if it works for me before rendering any fat. its hard for me to get grassfed suet at the moment anyway.

I was more curious if one could eat the jerky (under a lb) with some minimum carbs or plant fats (say not for survival but traveling in a city) sneaking in the occasional RAF. I guess since I also do dairy, I could always just carry a cooler with butter, and this and jerky probably wouldn't offend my hosts.

[Paleo Donk]

Total calories are the most important factor when assessing hunger and so you will be satiated even on a high protein diet. It does take quite a bit more total food though to reach satiation as lean meat is about 80% water and fat is about 20% water and twice as calorie dense. So, when I was eating leaner cuts I was eating lots of food though not necessarily lots of calories.

At the moment I have this intense desire to test out whether or not excess protein can be a problem. Before doing any analysis, I strongly believe there to be a connection between excess protein and body-malfunction/disease. I have found a lot of evidence backing this up and so will set out to test whether or not I can sustain myself in good health on a low-protein diet. I am trying to remain open to being completely wrong, so that I can easily amend my assertions. This protein amount is much less than what is ever recommended for an athlete so I should have some pretty interesting results even in just a few weeks.

 My urine is quite bubbly as well, though I'm horrible at making judgments of this sort because I don't really recall what my urine looked like a couple years ago. Yes, I think the bubbles are due to excess protein. Maybe, someone can help me out here to fill in the details.

[yon yonson]

just wanted to add that i apparently do very well with papaya. i had a craving for one so i picked up one of the large mexican papayas. i think it digests better than any other fruit i've eaten since going rpd. i ater probably 2 cups of it in one sitting and it didn't even aggravate any candida symptoms. im impressed. looking forward to eating quality papaya in thailand...

[djr_81]

just wanted to add that i apparently do very well with papaya. i had a craving for one so i picked up one of the large mexican papayas. i think it digests better than any other fruit i've eaten since going rpd. i ater probably 2 cups of it in one sitting and it didn't even aggravate any candida symptoms. im impressed. looking forward to eating quality papaya in thailand...

Interesting. I might have to pick one up and give it a shot at some point. Thanks for the lead.

[yon yonson]

i've got some more to add to the list: radishes and onions.

i think i was overeating meat and fat the last few days and i was craving some sort of vegetable matter (and it was a specific craving vegetables, not fruit). kinda strange because i haven't really eaten a significant amount of veggies in a year or so. anyways, i found some two large radishes and an onion in my parents fridge. ate both radishes and a couple slice of onion. no problems whatsoever. and actually, i felt amazing after eating them. i might need to include more veggies in my diet...

[Squall]

I agree emphatically with Alphagruis. One of the unpopular realities that many people of all dietary stripes seem to have difficulty coming to terms with, is that our ancient ancestors, apparently starting with Homo erectus and continuing to this day, engaged in wanton destruction of other species (both prey and competitor predators) in a carnage unprecedented in the whole history of the planet. Given that hominids began exterminating whole species of animals once they mastered hunting technologies and techniques and continued to do so through most of human history and still do so today, it's unlikely that early Paleolithic humans were particularly concerned with being wardens of the earth. Can you imagine a H. erectus even considering it, much less enforcing it, given that verbal language hadn't even developed? I think the conservation-minded approach likely developed (like most things) out of necessity, once most of the megafauna were exterminated. It's an approach I advocate, but I don't think it was common in the early or middle Paleolithic.

Human history is drenched in blood and we are literally the products of that blood. If human beings have an original sin it is probably the annhilation of countless other species of animals and plants. It's time that we as a species grew up and came to grips with that and stopped pretending, as many vegans are wont to do, that we are a pristine pure species that tasted nary a drop of blood and never harmed as much as a fly and were perfect wardens of the environment until evil modernity arose. I realize that this is an unpopular conclusion (especially with the afore-mentioned vegans and Paleo utopians like brother William), but it seems inescapable to me based on the evidence, and winning popularity contests has never been my goal.

This is definitely not an unpopular motif, even in these forums. The idea that humankind is pervasively destructive with a past and present "drenched in blood" and a future full of doom and gloom with no way out is actually quite common. Its pretty much par for the course when you turn on the radio, TV, or read the latest NY Times bestseller. I've come to understand this reasoning as a form of sociopathy, or at the very least, self-loathing.

Unpopular conclusion indeed but inescapable, I agree with PaleoPhil and definitely disagree with the idyllic view of William

I don't think William's view of the pre-neolithic is idyllic at all. He seems to think mankind had an innate sense of conservation. Why would he not? He knew how to make tools, identify edible plants, harness fire, etc. He could conceptualize, vocalize, count, and make sophisticated art. But he couldn't forecast?

William also (though not explicitly) is pointing out a fallacious argument. Assuming that the past is as messed up as the present is just a form of argument from convention which is a non-sequitor. Do your progenitors some respect at least and show some evidence to back up your claims that they were so inherently destructive and blood-crazed. While you're at it, explain how you're here to explain all this given that you and the rest of the human race should have already perished.

I'm keenly aware that the dominant solution to the megafauna problem is over hunting, at least in uniformitarian circles. I'm also aware that megafauna were large, much larger than elephants which are probably the largest land animal. From my understanding, elephants are already pushing the limits of the strength-weight ratio, so I have no idea how animals significantly larger (like mammoths) even managed to lift themselves off the ground under current gravitational acceleration. I can easily imagine, however, a narrow-minded paleontologist making up a simple but lame theory about humans "killing too much" to answer a complex question.

Also, I wanted to caution many of you here about the doom and gloom. I usually look past it because I know there's good info here. However, more and more, posters are going off-topic with their personal views about how horrible the human race is. If these forums are here to serve people with questions of an RPD nature, then this off-topic nonsense should cease, or you're going to scare people away.