Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 Some books Last Hunters, Fisrt Farmers - New Perspectives on The Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture- Price and Gebauer The Emergence of Agriculture - Bruce D. Those are two books, I'll list more later. Elainie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 This a field which is constantly changing , being revised and updated with new information but my understanding is that in the past 2 years it's been found that neander man is not related to homo sapiens . Elainie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 Also according to new evidence there were large settlements of paleolithic people in the Lavant region harvesting wild strains of emmer wheat, eikorn and barley. According to ethnobotanists, archeologists, anthropologists, archeobotanists etc.. etc.. know that this is not a static field of study. Nothing is set and the information we have is minimal. There's a lot more to learn. It's very easy to rationalize any diet using modern scientific findings from the past 20 years, while many of these findings have been revised and updated and still nothing is definitive. Elainie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 In a message dated 2/3/2004 3:02:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, deweyli@... writes: > > Moreover, humans were likely eating grains *long* before >>they began domesticating grains, to some extent. > Yes! Which provides another point to argue that grains are > even unhealthier for us than they were for them. It does? How so? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 my understanding of the real story is somewhat different, but can be glossed over to make it sound like what your husband found. the way i understand it, " paleo man " evolved to eat animal protein, which is why we have a much smaller gut than " neander man " - because breaking down animal products doesn't take that enormous digestive tract that breaking down grasses does. this is why when you look at the remains of both sets of man, neander-man has a big barrel torso and paleo-man looks like us. that's the short-short-short version, and i'm sure everyone else will jump in with lots of documentation for you, but there ya go. -katja At 11:16 AM 2/3/2004, you wrote: >My husband has been doing some extensive research on grains and the newest >info is that paleo man (yes ) ate more than his share of wild grasses with >only >20% of his diet being animal foods in . That sure throws a whole wrench into >this paleo diet , doesn't it? If you want to take the time and do all the >reasearch, I can recommend all the books that support this new evidence. > >Elainie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 > In a message dated 2/3/2004 3:02:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, deweyli@e... writes: > > > > Moreover, humans were likely eating grains *long* before >>they began domesticating grains, to some extent. > > > > Yes! Which provides another point to argue that grains are > > even unhealthier for us than they were for them. > > > It does? How so? > > Chris Well, I thought that ancient grains are supposed to be better than recent domesticated grains. If the grains they were eating were " better " , yet they had deterioration of their health after the grains were introduced, why would the domesticated grains be better for us? Am I missing something? Robin L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 > My husband has been doing some extensive research on grains and the newest > info is that paleo man (yes ) ate more than his share of wild grasses with only > 20% of his diet being animal foods in . That sure throws a whole wrench into > this paleo diet , doesn't it? If you want to take the time and do all the > reasearch, I can recommend all the books that support this new evidence. > > Elainie Well, I suppose they will be debating forever on what the diet of man initially was. I guess, regardless of which gene pool you originate from, each person has to figure out for themselves which foods don't work well for their body, and which foods they do best on. I figure I will start with a basic diet of meats/vegetables/fruits, and stay away from the foods that seems to give people the most problems - grains, beans/legumes, and nuts/seeds. If I improve over time with this diet, then I will slowly start adding some of the other things back in and see what happens. If I start feeling fatigued, depressed, gain weight, etc., after adding something, then I will know to keep that particular food out of my diet. When I say adding slowly, I mean adding one particular food at a time, such as, just almonds instead of nuts in general, for about a month - to allow for delayed reactions. I'm assuming this would be the best way to add things back because within one group of food, say grains for example, a person may have a problem with wheat but not spelt; it would be hard for them to pinpoint which grain is causing problems if more than one type is added at the same time. Robin L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 From my understanding it comprised 20% of a diet that was mostly plant foods (80%) which is similar to modern day hunter gatherer's. Elainie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 Interesting Wanita. Mind you I'm not saying grains are beneficial but to base the eating of or non eating of grains on a system that is everchanging seems strange to me. Some people do really well eating grain, others don't. Elainie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 Hi Elainie, When you say 20% of the diet was meat does that mean 20% of the calories or 20% by some other measure? Just curious. Judith Alta -----Original Message----- From: zumicat@... [mailto:zumicat@...] My husband has been doing some extensive research on grains and the newest info is that paleo man (yes ) ate more than his share of wild grasses with only 20% of his diet being animal foods in . That sure throws a whole wrench into this paleo diet , doesn't it? If you want to take the time and do all the reasearch, I can recommend all the books that support this new evidence. Elainie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 Robin- > If the grains they were eating >were " better " , yet they had deterioration of their health after the >grains were introduced, why would the domesticated grains be better >for us? Am I missing something? No, your logic is impeccable, and it fits the facts as we know them. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 In a message dated 2/3/04 12:27:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, deweyli@... writes: > Well, I thought that ancient grains are supposed to be better than > recent domesticated grains. If the grains they were eating > were " better " , yet they had deterioration of their health after the > grains were introduced, why would the domesticated grains be better > for us? Am I missing something? Yes. The marker for the deterioration in health is the domestication of grains, not the consumption of grains. I don't think anyone has any idea how long humans have been eating grains, yet everyone assumes without reason that grain consumption began with grain domestication. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 In a message dated 2/3/04 5:16:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, wanitawa@... writes: > IIRC, all archaeological sites averaged around the world have a 30% hunted, > 70% gathered ratio. 20% animal not that much less. There's no accurate way to distinguish this archeologically. There's too many kinds of foods that just don't leave archeological traces, so any estimation is almost *entirely* speculation. Based on the study of hunter-gatherers, there is a direct correlation with latitudinal distance from the equator and percentage animal product consumption. The !Kung San were found to have 37% of calories from animal products, and they're pretty close to the equator. The Inuit, of course, have much more animal products. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 In a message dated 2/3/04 6:16:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, zumicat@... writes: > From my understanding it comprised 20% of a diet that was mostly plant > foods > (80%) which is similar to modern day hunter gatherer's. Like the Inuit? That doesn't correspond to modern day hunter gatherers at all. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 In a message dated 2/3/04 6:28:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, heidis@... writes: > Also, the glycemic index of the grains has increased exponentially. > Not only are they ground finer now, but the grains have > more quick carbs and we eat them in crackers and bread, > which digest immediately. I've raised this issue a billion times and don't recall anyone ever responding to it: Everything we advocate increases the simple sugars in grains. Sprouting clearly makes grains nutritionally superior in many senses, yet converts most of the starch to simple sugars. Just taste Manna bread-- it tastes like cake, yet the only ingrediets, literally, are sprouted rye kernels and water. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 Elainie, One book I've seen on North America with grass, seed reference is Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands. Got it mainly for New England which is omitted along with the entire east coast. Covers Ohio valley south with one Florida site, 2300 B.C. to A.D. 300. Seed and grass caches were found along with evidence in remains of high seed, grass consumption. IIRC, from archaeological evidence elsewhere that there were some remains from Cahokia where the person was considered to have died from severe tooth infection. This makes sense to me with Cahokia being politically and hierarchally, structured much like a kingdom with royalty. There was a large worker class of people to build the mounds, live furthest away from the highest class, raise food for the higher classes and likely eat at a much lower level than the other classes. Another one of the many extravagant civilizations to put itself into history's extinct category. Wanita > My husband has been doing some extensive research on grains and the newest > info is that paleo man (yes ) ate more than his share of wild grasses with only > 20% of his diet being animal foods in . That sure throws a whole wrench into > this paleo diet , doesn't it? If you want to take the time and do all the > reasearch, I can recommend all the books that support this new evidence. > > Elainie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 Elainie & Katja, Pretty sure Neanderthal is considered extinct. Whoever moved into their area had better tools, better hunting abilities. Rather than adapt to other food, tools or move on they starved to death. Asian people with higher grain, carbohydrate diets have longer intestines than more carniverous peoples. Wanita > This a field which is constantly changing , being revised and updated with > new information but my understanding is that in the past 2 years it's been found > that neander man is not related to homo sapiens . > > Elainie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 right - i think i made it sound like paleos evolved from neanders, which is not what i meant. i was just illustrating the difference. the source i got it from opined that one reason the neanders died out was that they didn't adapt to a more meat-heavy diet... At 04:28 PM 2/3/2004, you wrote: >Elainie & Katja, > >Pretty sure Neanderthal is considered extinct. Whoever moved into their area >had better tools, better hunting abilities. Rather than adapt to other food, >tools or move on they starved to death. Asian people with higher grain, >carbohydrate diets have longer intestines than more carniverous peoples. > >Wanita > > > This a field which is constantly changing , being revised and updated with > > new information but my understanding is that in the past 2 years it's been >found > > that neander man is not related to homo sapiens . > > > > Elainie > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 IIRC, all archaeological sites averaged around the world have a 30% hunted, 70% gathered ratio. 20% animal not that much less. Wanita > > > My husband has been doing some extensive research on grains and > the newest > > info is that paleo man (yes ) ate more than his share of wild > grasses with only > > 20% of his diet being animal foods in . That sure throws a whole > wrench into > > this paleo diet , doesn't it? If you want to take the time and do > all the > > reasearch, I can recommend all the books that support this new > evidence. > > > > Elainie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 I live in the Neandertal. !! There was a geneticist from Oxford U. who came here...I don't know when perhaps two years ago and confirmed with genetic typing that the Neandertalen had died out. It is all reviewed in " Seven Sisters of Eve. " a book published by this geneticist. Re: Re: " Grains Good as Gold " > right - i think i made it sound like paleos evolved from neanders, which is > not what i meant. i was just illustrating the difference. the source i got > it from opined that one reason the neanders died out was that they didn't > adapt to a more meat-heavy diet... > > At 04:28 PM 2/3/2004, you wrote: > >Elainie & Katja, > > > >Pretty sure Neanderthal is considered extinct. Whoever moved into their area > >had better tools, better hunting abilities. Rather than adapt to other food, > >tools or move on they starved to death. Asian people with higher grain, > >carbohydrate diets have longer intestines than more carniverous peoples. > > > >Wanita > > > > > This a field which is constantly changing , being revised and updated with > > > new information but my understanding is that in the past 2 years it's been > >found > > > that neander man is not related to homo sapiens . > > > > > > Elainie > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 >My husband has been doing some extensive research on grains and the newest >info is that paleo man (yes ) ate more than his share of wild grasses with only >20% of his diet being animal foods in . That sure throws a whole wrench into >this paleo diet , doesn't it? If you want to take the time and do all the >reasearch, I can recommend all the books that support this new evidence. > >Elainie It's true they ate a lot of plants, but the mass harvesting of grains is REALLY recent for most of us. As recently as 100 years ago, folk in Northern Europe got very little wheat (it was too pricey). There are lots of other grains easier to harvest, and only the wheat family has devastating effects on health ... and then usually only after 20 years of eating it (and Paleo folks didn't live very long on average). Also it has to do with how the grain is processed ... boiled whole grains or semi-ground grains are lots better for you than finely milled flour. Fermented grains are better than otherwise. And the gluten content of wheat has increased something like 10-fold in modern times. Most of the BIG fatal grain issues are from gluten, not from the starch. Also, the glycemic index of the grains has increased exponentially. Not only are they ground finer now, but the grains have more quick carbs and we eat them in crackers and bread, which digest immediately. Also in most tribal cultures, there is MUCH more variety of foods they eat. They might eat grains ... and also a bunch of different tubers, insects, leaves, fruits, nuts. It is a situation, I think, similar to that of ruminants. All ruminants will eat grains when they can get them ... but there aren't very many in the wild, and they are very seasonal, and eating grain-heads in a field didn't kill the cows. But eating a diet of cracked corn can and will kill a ruminant (without additional antibiotics) because, at the root if it, they aren't designed for an all grain diet. Anyway, people can eat a diet high in grains if they are the right grains and processed correctly. Most of Asia does this. But some grains are just worse than others. In the case of wheat, there is a direct and known genetic connection ... if you have HLA-DQ8 or HLA-DQ2, you will likely have problems with wheat. Those genes are very rare in long-term wheat eating countries, so I can say with pretty fair assurance that MY ancestors did not eat much wheat. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 >my understanding of the real story is somewhat different, but can be >glossed over to make it sound like what your husband found. >the way i understand it, " paleo man " evolved to eat animal protein, which >is why we have a much smaller gut than " neander man " - because breaking >down animal products doesn't take that enormous digestive tract that >breaking down grasses does. this is why when you look at the remains of >both sets of man, neander-man has a big barrel torso and paleo-man looks >like us. human gut lenght varies considerably, so i'm not sure *who* specifically was studied to determine that modern humans " look like " paleo folk. it's also possible that gut width changes in any given human in response to diet, at least this has been found in dogs - you can actually increase the width of the colon by feeding certain foods. (i don't know if that goes for length as well.) Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 > Yes. The marker for the deterioration in health is the domestication of > grains, not the consumption of grains. I don't think anyone has any idea how long > humans have been eating grains, yet everyone assumes without reason that > grain consumption began with grain domestication. > > Chris So, are you saying that the grains they ate were most likely domesticated grains? Robin L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 > and only the wheat family has devastating effects > on health ... and then usually only after 20 years of eating > it (and Paleo folks didn't live very long on average). Are buckwheat and rye the only grains in the wheat family? Where did you get your information that only the wheat family grains have devastating effects on health? That's an interesting bit of information if indeed it is true. Robin L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 > Are buckwheat and rye the only grains in the wheat family? Buckwheat's not even a grain... Lynn S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.