Ad Widget

Collapse

Odd Human Evolution Question.... Diet

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Odd Human Evolution Question.... Diet

    sfggfg!
    Last edited by Anopsmoves; 06-04-2017, 06:48 PM.

  • #2
    No need to eat exactly what our ancestors ate, just to use it as a reference. And the current African foods are probably not like the prehistoric versions.
    Ancestral Health Info - My blog about Primal and the general ancestral health movement. Site just remodeled using HTML5/CSS3 instead of Wordpress.

    My MDA Friday success story - Stubborn Senior's Testimonial

    Comment


    • #3
      also 99% might be a tad off. 80000 of 25000000 is roughly 96.8%
      Primal since April 2012 Male 6' 3" SW 345lbs CW 240lbs GW 220lbs and when I get there I am getting a utlikilt. This one http://www.utilikilts.com/company/pr...ilts/workmans/ actually.

      Join me at www.paleoplanet.net, where all the cavemen hang out.

      Comment


      • #4
        if I'm following my nose it ain't leading me to fruits and vegetables....Roasted meat on a BBQ yes.....the smell of fruits and salad....um no.

        Comment


        • #5
          Tiger Nuts

          Read more about how Tiger Nuts shaped human evolution here.

          If you buy them, I'd recommend the peeled versions. The unpeeled need to be soaked before eating, but it is exactly the same food that humans thrived on for millions of years.

          Look at nutritional profile. A handful of these little guys was actually just as nutritious as a frog or bird egg and easier to collect.

          Find me on Facebook!

          Comment


          • #6
            "Out of Africa" is only a theory.

            If indigenous populations survived in other corners of the planet for long periods of time (Australians where living here for 40+ thousand years) then you could say their body's where fully adapted to local food.


            Sent from my iPad using Marks Daily Apple Forum
            A little primal gem - My Success Story
            Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

            Comment


            • #7
              Restricting diet to what was available on one continent, because so much of the species's evolution happened there, in the name of evolutionary diet success, ignores that unless you happen to be an African recently, or a recent one genetically, your family lines left there a long time ago relative to the homo sapien species existing, and your ancestors may have interbred with related species which left Africa even earlier. As it is, most of Africa eats either foods agricultural foods originating in SW Asia, or a handful of tropical African agricultural foods that took over the continent during the Bantu expansion. African bush meat certainly doesn't need anymore hunting pressure, if you want to keep with animals.

              We can made some pretty good guesses to what the archaic homo sapiens, the later homo erectus, and earlier homo species were eating, but for the most part we don't need to do that. Essentially, the same foods can be approximated locally wherever you live.

              I suppose, the best argument for dietary health, might be to eat the animals that are suited to the productive environments of a region. In the US, we seem to love beef, and I am no exception. However, I love bison, and from the health perspective and the long term health of ranching, we would do better to raise and consume more bison in the US, over cattle. If nothing else, bison survive some of North America's harsher climates a little better than cattle.

              Maybe we should fund a paleo ranch in the Dakotas, and start a club that allows members to buy bison meat at reduced prices. Come to the ranch and tour the animals, then eat them.
              Last edited by Jim_H; 08-02-2014, 04:49 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                as far as fruits and plants go not meat... Would we better suited to obtain our nutrients from the plants and fruits we spent MOST time eating and co evolving with in Africa? Is there a difference between obtaining nutrition from say figs and green leaves from the african rainforest or savannah and say eating peaches and some wild european or asian greens? Do we digest and obtain nutrients in the same way or could we be better suited to this African Vegetation? Or now living in North America (blueberries, wild dandelion, woddsorrell, etc (north american plants) could we better suited to Vegetation from a different continent or can we obtain the same types of things from various plants and greens from all continents? Did we start obtaining better food sources when we left Africa?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Anopsmoves View Post
                  as far as fruits and plants go not meat... Would we better suited to obtain our nutrients from the plants and fruits we spent MOST time eating and co evolving with in Africa? Is there a difference between obtaining nutrition from say figs and green leaves from the african rainforest or savannah and say eating peaches and some wild european or asian greens? Do we digest and obtain nutrients in the same way or could we be better suited to this African Vegetation? Or now living in North America (blueberries, wild dandelion, woddsorrell, etc (north american plants) could we better suited to Vegetation from a different continent or can we obtain the same types of things from various plants and greens from all continents? Did we start obtaining better food sources when we left Africa?
                  I think you are on to something! Here's what I think your observations show: We are meant to live on a diet that consists of muscle meat, organ meat, insects, aquatic life, starchy tubers, fibrous plants and fruit in season. What is more important is what we evolved on NOT eating: refined grains, refined vegetable oils, refined sugars, artificial colors and flavors, man-made fibers, etc...

                  Also, the food we ate and our bodies were minimally washed allowing microbes to do what they do. We exercised a lot. We slept in the dark. And all that jazz...
                  Find me on Facebook!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Frankly, I think the premises of an evolutionary diet are hokum. Why? Unless you ate exactly as the first humans ate, you cannot be following a first humans' diet. As they spread out, they encountered different species of plants and animals - and ADAPTED! That is why an ancestral Inuit diet is completely at odds with a Polynesian ancestral diet, or even American (N and S) native diets. Humans can adapt remarkably well to whatever foods are extant in their area, learning from experience which are nutritious, medicinal, or toxic. (Hard on the failures, of course.;-))

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                      "Out of Africa" is only a theory.
                      Yeah, and it always will be "only a theory" since we can only say that it makes the most sense of the gigantically copious evidence that supports it, not "prove" it, unless we get time machines.

                      Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                      If indigenous populations survived in other corners of the planet for long periods of time (Australians where living here for 40+ thousand years) then you could say their body's where fully adapted to local food.
                      But yeah, the vast majority of our pre-human primate evolution took place in the trees. And the vast majority of our pre-mammalian evolution took place in the oceans. Doesn't mean we should brachiate or eat a diet comprised of krill. What matters is what our present bodies are adapted to. And there are plenty of valid points to debate on that subject.
                      The Champagne of Beards

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                        Yeah, and it always will be "only a theory" since we can only say that it makes the most sense of the gigantically copious evidence that supports it, not "prove" it, unless we get time machines.



                        But yeah, the vast majority of our pre-human primate evolution took place in the trees. And the vast majority of our pre-mammalian evolution took place in the oceans. Doesn't mean we should brachiate or eat a diet comprised of krill. What matters is what our present bodies are adapted to. And there are plenty of valid points to debate on that subject.
                        40 thousand years ago to NOW. I am debating on what our bodies are adapted to eat right now. I could probably go and shake hands with one of these 40 000 year evidence bearers within the hour if I wanted to.

                        Also....

                        Evidence of pre history is a very tricky subject. The gigantically copious amount of evidence you speak of is a very small snapshot into the past. One piece of new evidence can easily shatter 50 years of thinking. (Like finding a mini human in Indonesia that pre-dates "out of Africa".


                        Sent from my iPad using Marks Daily Apple Forum
                        A little primal gem - My Success Story
                        Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                          40 thousand years ago to NOW. I am debating on what our bodies are adapted to eat right now. I could probably go and shake hands with one of these 40 000 year evidence bearers within the hour if I wanted to.
                          And I am making no argument on that matter, but simply saying that there's a lot of things to debate that are not firmly settled by either evidence or analysis at the moment.

                          Also....

                          Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                          Evidence of pre history is a very tricky subject. The gigantically copious amount of evidence you speak of is a very small snapshot into the past. One piece of new evidence can easily shatter 50 years of thinking. (Like finding a mini human in Indonesia that pre-dates "out of Africa".
                          I guess it depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about whether all humans are descended from African ancestors, then no. Absolutely not. If you're talking about the the "separate origins"/"multiregionalist" theory, it's simply that the migration(s) from Africa took place much earlier. And the likelihood is that not only are both correct, but there may have actually been 3 major migrations, based on DNA evidence. 1 at about 1.7 million years ago, one around 0.42-0.84 million years ago, and one between 0.08 and 0.15 million years ago. So from a backwards perspective, different genetic coalescence points may point to different evidence, but we clearly are all evolved from African human ancestors.
                          The Champagne of Beards

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You can almost make the opposite case to the idea that if we originated in Africa, African foods are likely best. We are weeds. In my back yard, bermuda and kiyuku grass are weeds. They do way better in the non-native region that is my back yard than they do where they originate. There's nothing to stop them from consuming my entire back yard.

                            But that's still not a helpful way to think about humans. Basically humans eat animals and animals are all made of similar stuff. It really matters little what animals we eat, especially if we eat mammals, birds and fish. What does matter is can we keep our hairless bodies warm enough.
                            Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                              And I am making no argument on that matter, but simply saying that there's a lot of things to debate that are not firmly settled by either evidence or analysis at the moment.

                              Also....
                              OK, i was just trying to point out to the OP that there are other parts of the world apart from Africa with long history's of human habitation. Surely these inhabitants where very well adapted to the food available in the region, or else they wouldn't be here, right? You don't have to go to Africa to find the "perfect" paleo diet.

                              Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                              I guess it depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about whether all humans are descended from African ancestors, then no. Absolutely not. If you're talking about the the "separate origins"/"multiregionalist" theory, it's simply that the migration(s) from Africa took place much earlier. And the likelihood is that not only are both correct, but there may have actually been 3 major migrations, based on DNA evidence. 1 at about 1.7 million years ago, one around 0.42-0.84 million years ago, and one between 0.08 and 0.15 million years ago. So from a backwards perspective, different genetic coalescence points may point to different evidence, but we clearly are all evolved from African human ancestors.
                              We can only DNA test and study specimens that have been found, right? These found specimens are but a mere cup in the ocean of actual human history. There are probably many races and sub races yet to be discovered and when discovered they very well could blow "out of Africa" out of the water.

                              Theories need evidence to be formulated and tested. Alot of Anthropology theories don't account for evidence they don't yet have.
                              Newly found (2003) Homo floresiensis is a testament to this, a new species found and a spanner in the works, anthropologists can not figure where this species originated (Africa or else where). Who else is lying 20 feet under the ground waiting to be found? and where did they originate from? was there another group of hominids who died out without specimens being preserved under a layer of ash, forever to be a missing link to an alternative history path.
                              A little primal gem - My Success Story
                              Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X