NutritionFacts.org
Browsing: Home / Videos / Paleolithic Lessons

Health Topics

Browse through 1,580 different health topics
from A-Z!
  1. #
  2. A
  3. B
  4. C
  5. D
  6. E
  7. F
  8. G
  9. H
  10. I
  11. J
  12. K
  13. L
  14. M
  15. N
  16. O
  17. P
  18. Q
  19. R
  20. S
  21. T
  22. U
  23. V
  24. W
  25. X
  26. Y
  27. Z
Browse All Topics

Paleolithic Lessons

An evolutionary argument for a plant-based diet is presented, in contrast to “paleo” fad diets.

October 9, 2012 |
GD Star Rating
loading...
FavoriteLoadingAdd to My Playlist

Topics

Supplementary Info

Paleolithic Lessons, 4.8 out of 5 based on 9 ratings

Sources Cited

Andrée S, Jira W, Schwind KH, Wagner H, Schwägele F. Chemical safety of meat and meat products. Meat Sci. 2010 Sep;86(1):38-48.

Benzie IF. Evolution of dietary antioxidants. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2003 Sep;136(1):113-26.

Jew S, AbuMweis SS, Jones PJ. Evolution of the human diet: linking our ancestral diet to modern functional foods as a means of chronic disease prevention. J Med Food. 2009 Oct;12(5):925-34.

Benzie IF, Wachtel-Galor S. Vegetarian diets and public health: biomarker and redox connections. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2010 Nov 15;13(10):1575-91.

Acknowledgements

Images thanks to: GrahamIX.

Transcript

A review published recently made an evolutionary argument for a plant-based diet, given the fact that we apparently evolved eating huge amounts of whole plant foods. 200,000 years ago it’s estimated that we consumed 600mg of vitamin C a day. That’s the amount of vitamin C found in 10 oranges, the amount of vitamin E found in 2 cups of nuts, the amount of calcium found in 5 cups of collard greens—and they weren't milking mammoths or anything. That came from all their wild greens. 100 plus grams of fiber—now we’re are lucky if we get 20 in day

In fact, we were exposed to such a quantity of healthy whole plant foods, we as a species lost our ability to make vitamin C. We still actually have the vitamin C gene in our DNA, but our bodies just junked it because why bother? Why waste the energy? We’re getting massive doses all day every day. The problem is now what happens when you take our evolutionary heritage, fine-tuned over the millennia and plop it down into meat and potato chip country?

Advocates of the so-called Paleo diet are certainly right in railing against refined and processed junk, but may just use it as an excuse to just eat loads of meat that bears little resemblance to flesh of prehistoric wild animals. Just the contaminant issue alone. Recently in the journal of the American Meat Science Association, a review was published cataloguing the laundry list: arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, preservatives, and veterinary drugs, like the antibiotic residues. Given what’s now in fish, for example, “it would be impossible to follow the Paleolithic diet while avoiding the risks associated with consuming mercury in amounts in excess of the suggested EPA threshold.”

The paleo diet patients I saw in my practice weren’t consisting on weeds and eating a 100 grams of fiber a day. They were eating burgers, not bugs. Based in part on our evolutionary history, “Sufficient scientific evidence exists for public health policy to promote a plant-rich diet for health promotion.”

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Kerry Skinner.

To help out on the site please email volunteer@nutritionfacts.org

Dr. Michael Greger

Doctor's Note

For those interested in digging deeper, there was an interesting Scientific American blog this summer entitled "Human Ancestors Were Nearly All Vegetarians" and there's an in-depth video series on YouTube. I wrote a whole book on the former low carb fad incarnation, Carbophobia, now available free online (like all of my work). I also have two videos Atkins Diet: Trouble Keeping It Up and Plant-Based Atkins Diet.

For some context, please check out my associated blog post: The Real Paleo Diet

If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

  • http://nutritionfacts.org/ Michael Greger M.D.

    For those interested in digging deeper, there was an interesting Scientific American blog this summer entitled “Human Ancestors Were Nearly All Vegetarians” and there’s an in-depth video series on YouTube. I wrote a whole book on the former low carb fad incarnation, Carbophobia, now available free online (like all of my work). I also have two videos Atkins Diet: Trouble Keeping It Up and Plant-Based Atkins Diet.

    If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

    • Procyan

      But the Harvard School of Public Health says we should fats up to 30 percent of calories.  You know, Harvard.  I mean Cornell is great but …  Whats a Holocene hominid to do?

      • JK

        A really great book to read is The China Study.  The author reveals how the food industry (dairy, meat), the big pharmaceuticals, and academia are in bed together and are behind the notion that you cite….that we should take in up to 30% fats.  It’s interesting.  

        • Procyan

          Thanks JK.  I did read it and watched FoK’s and have been WFPB’d for since july 2011.  I am doing much better. 

          But it upsets me when I see such conflicting info from reputable institutions such as Harvard.  Have you read this:

          http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/

          Harvard says that I am hurting my heart by not eating enough good fat.  And they read the literature too.

          It bothers me when scientists in various camps simply ignore the arguments of their peers.  They should ignore the wacko’s but Harvard says nothing, not one word, about The China Study, or any of the WFPB camp.

          How has Harvard been duped by the food industry?

          • Veganrunner

            Hi Procyan,

            What I noticed about the information in the link above is that progress is being made! Compare that to nutritional advice from 10 years ago and one can see the trend is changing.

            With all the current research on a WFPB diet what will the food pyramid look like in another 10 years? I think it is very encouraging!

          • Procyan

            Yes I do take your point and someday this will all be clear as…but THIS issue is black and white.  Either its under 10% calories from lipid or 30% is best. 

            There is a moral responsibility for any authority such as HSPH to get it right before making condecending statements like “Its time to end the low-fat myth”.  Afterall, this is a matter of life and death.

            I have learned from Dr G to constantly adjust my diet to incorporate new knowledge.  As near as I can tell, calories from fat is still a toss up. 

            I am not trying to provoke anyone except perhaps to separate the subtler aspects like which mushroom is best from the essential need to get it right.  You know, so I don’t have to read literature that I don’t understand anyway, heh.

          • http://www.facebook.com/duke.manly.5 Duke Manly

            I think a better idea would be to actually do the research yourself instead of listening to some internet guru. I’m reading his atkins debunker website…and its despicable. MDs are trained practionors, not researchers. This guy just wants your attention and will try to trick you by coming off as science based. For example:

            “Noting that by the end of the year, half of the Atkins group had dropped out, and those who remained ended up an unimpressive 4% lighter, Fat of The Land author Michael Fumento commented, “do you really think any of them could sell a single book copy, much less as many as 15 million (for Atkins), by admitting to a 50 percent drop-out rate in one year with a mere five percent of weight loss among those left?”[218]”

            This is a quotation he is using as an argument in the same page, he praises the ornish diet, which had a higher drop out rate than the atkins diet (by 1, the dropout rate was similar in all groups, and adherence was lower in atkins than the ornish, but not by a lot). He is using a quote to critiize a diet for having a “high” drop out rate. Yet, when he talks about his precious vegan diet, the fact of a similar (higher int he study, effectively equal) dropout rate is nowhere to be heard.

            You see how he is decieving you? I’ve seen a lot of other incidences such as this throughout his arguments. This is why it pays to read references. Don’t trust internet gurus. Having an MD doesn’t make somebody correct or trustworthy.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Reminds me of Campbell’s protein study on the rats. He tells you that the high protein rats developed cancer but he fails to mention the low-protein rats ALL DIED.

            >.<

          • Thea

            Paleo Huntrees: That’s a weird thing to write. I just finished reading The China Study. It says in black and white, right there on top of page 61 of my copy: 100% of the rats on the high (animal) protein diet were dead at 100 weeks. And 100% of the animals on the low protein diet were alive at 100 weeks. FYI: plant protein did not have the same detrimental effect as the animal protein.

            Yes, eventually, every animal dies. But those rats who were getting the low protein diet were extremely lucky and lived longer than the group of rats getting the high animal protein diet. In other words, the very opposite of what you wrote above is true.

            Clearly you didn’t read the book, and I’m sure you are innocently repeating what you have been erroneously told elsewhere (probably on a some paleo site?). Now that you know the truth, I hope you will share it with others.

            A tip: Don’t take my word for it. Read the book yourself. Not only is this data extremely compelling, but the rest of it is too. Good luck.

          • Paleo Huntress

            I’ve read the book… I was vegan for two years. Get off your high horse and ask for clarification if you need it.

            Campbell even mentions the study in Forks Over Knives… in the study I’m referencing, rodents were given aflatoxin and given 2 different diets. One with 20% protein (casein) and one with 5%. He found that they were more likely to get cancer if they ate high-protein diets and actually claimed that the ones fed low-protein diets were less likely to develop malignant tumors. Technically that was true.

            However, the low protein rats all died young. Every. Last. One. They got less cancer because they didn’t live long enough to develop tumors. And correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the point of avoiding cancer to actually live LONGER?

            Then he did similar tests on monkeys and found that the high protein group DIDN’T get cancer at all.

            “Monkeys on low protein diet surviving for 90 weeks or more show foci of preneoplastic lesions, whereas those on high protein diet reveal no such alterations at the corresponding time interval…”

            FYI: Although he SAYS otherwise, according to Campbell’s OWN data, plant protein was MORE strongly correlated with cancer than animal protein.

            Perhaps it’s time for YOU to review the data again.

            ~Huntress

          • Thea

            Huntress: I’m referring to the exact same study you are referring to. Here is the exact quote from the book, top of page 61/paperback copy:

            “The effects of protein feeding on tumor development were nothing less than spectacular. Rats generally live for about two years, thus the study was 100 weeks in length. All animals that were administered aflaxtoxin and fed the regular 20% levels of casein either were dead or near death from liver tumors at 100 weeks. All animals administered the same level of aflatoxin but fed the low 5% protein diet were alive, active and thrifty, with sleek hair coats at 100 weeks. This was a virtual 100 to 0 score, something almost never seen in research and almost identical to the original research in India.”

            He gives references in the book if you need to verify. I can’t imagine how you could have read the book and come to the conclusion that you did. Do you still think I am missing something about the above paragraph?

            I don’t know anything about that monkey study, but given your understanding of the rat study, I would need to see the original paper to be able to buy what you are saying.

            re: “high horse” Oh goodness. I spent extra time trying extra hard to make my post was as gentle and helpful as possible. I’m sorry you were offended despite my efforts. Know that I was trying to help you and others out. Let’s keep this discussion as accurate and civil as we can.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Thea,

            If that was an apology, it was a poor one, but I accept.

            A tip: If you don’t wish to come off sounding high and mighty, it would make more sense to assume that a person commenting on a book has probably read that book. Now of course, this isn’t always the case, but it would make MUCH more sense to ask for clarification than to suggest with “A tip” that I go read something I’m already referencing.

            Moving on:

            This is the specific study I refer to and one of several that Campbell did with similar levels of casein. (Arch Pathol. 1968 Feb;85(2):133-7 | The effect of dietary protein on carcinogenesis of aflatoxin)

            The paper specifically states that six months into the study they stopped feeding the daily aflatoxin because half of the low protein rats had died– and eventually the reminder before the two year mark. ALL of the high protein rats survived past 2 years.

            In his OWN first study a few years later (J Nutr. 1972 Jan;102(1):53-60 | Effect of protein deprivation of male weanling rats on the kinetics of hepatic microsomal enzyme activity.)

            He writes-

            “A deficiency of dietary protein was shown to increase the toxicity of aflatoxin for rats.”

            “The effect of protein deficiency in male weanling rats on the activity of the hepatic microsomal enzyme system was studied.”

            He also looked at levels of 5 and 20% protein from casein, though there was a second 20% group where he restricted calories as well. Typically a healthy rat will double it’s body weight (50-100 grams) in 2 years (and the 20% group did), but the 5% protein group only reached 75 grams. The low protein group also developed fatty livers.

            He wrote:

            “the normal rate of cell proliferation would have been decreased during protein deprivation, which is similar to the retardation of brain cell growth of young malnourished animals.

            Campbell did another study in 1980 with aflatoxin (J Toxicol Environ Health. 1980 May;6(3):659-71 | Subcellular distribution and covalent binding of aflatoxins as functions of dietary manipulation.)

            In the 20% casein diet they added aflatoxin at five parts per million (5 ppm) aflatoxin, but the 5% casein diet with only half that– 2.5 ppm. the stated reason was,

            “5 ppm was found to be lethal for this dietary group.”

            In every study he’s done, he’s shown that the higher protein group does better in every area. It is bizarre that he claims otherwise.”

            ~Huntress

          • Thea

            Hmmm. That’s quite the contradiction. Not much else to say without doing a lot more research. Good luck to you.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Thea,

            Campbell also did a study in 1978 (Fed Proc. 1976 Nov;35(13):2470-4 | The effect of quantity and quality of dietary protein on drug metabolism)

            He write:

            “The toxicities of several pesticides have been shown to be markedly increased, such as that of captan which is increased 2,100 times by protein deficiency.”

            In the summary of his findings he lists 3 toxins whose toxicity decreased on low-protein (5%) diets and 18 (6 times more) whose toxicity increased on low-protein diets.

            His concluding sentence reads:

            “This observation suggests that the low protein intake was not sufficient to allow for tissue recovery from the acute toxic effects.”

            So in 1978, he describes 5% as “protein deficiency” and later it becomes “ideal”?!

          • Paleo Huntress

            In his 1983 study (Cancer Res. 1983 May;43(5):2150-4 | Effect of high and low dietary protein on the dosing and postdosing periods of aflatoxin B1-induced hepatic preneoplastic lesion development in the rat)

            He finds:

            “Some degree of bile duct proliferation was observed in all animals dosed with AFB1. However, the groups fed the 5% casein diet during the dosing period had relatively severe bile duct proliferation and cholangiofibrosis [fibrosis of the bile duct]. In these groups, the architecture of the liver was often distorted by fibrous septa. Groups fed the 20% casein diet during the dosing period had mild bile duct proliferation and no cholangiofibrosis.

            I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Campbell significantly misrepresented his own data.

          • Guest II

             My take on this article and the ones linked to it, Procyan, is that the authors are afraid that if we avoid fat in foods, we’ll replace it with white flour, sugar, white rice and potatoes- and other packaged and junk food. To their credit, the do recommend whole grains instead. But, I also get the feeling that these people are somewhat stogy and traditional and slow to change. Certainly they don’t consider a plant-based approach to health.

          • Toxins

            The only dietary fat we need is omega 3 and 6. there is no dietary need to consume outside sources of fat.

          • http://nutrientuniverse.blogspot.co.uk/ JamesKB

            I don’t really understand what this argument is about. Not many scientists have conflicting views on this really. Am I right in thinking you’re thinking Campbell recommends low fat? Because I don’t think he does. Furthermore Campbell doesn’t represent the opinion of Cornell I don’t think. I find it a little extreme that Harvard are pushing healthy fats to this extent, but I think I know the research they’re basing it on. I think several studies have shown cutting saturated fat intake doesn’t help greatly, but when you replace it with unsaturated fat instead, it does help. Perhaps the saturated fat was being replaced with refined carbohydrates. Harvard’s advice is pretty in line with Dr Gregers. Eat more nuts, seeds, avocados and maybe some extra virgin olive oil. You probably don’t need 30% though. The only big dog who really shuns fats is McDougall, but even he allows whole fats to slim active people.

          • Huntress Paleo

            I just saw a debate (done this month I believe) between Campbell and a low-carb doc. Campbell specifically states that his data showed that plant fat was associated with disease while animal fat was not. Campbell’s schtick is all about protein.

          • Thea

            Paleo Huntress: re: “Campbell specifically states that his data showed that plant fat was associated with disease…” Hmmm. Again, I just finished reading Campbell’s book. I don’t remember any part of the book saying that plant fat is associated with disease. Perhaps you misunderstood? Where was this debate?

          • Paleo Huntress

            This is the link to the debate–> (Campbell’s debate) He is discussing breast cancer and the link to diet. At the 50 minute mark he states,

            “It turns out that animal fat does NOT promote breast cancer, plant fat does a better job at that. So here we’ve got a dilemma, a really serious dilemma… So therefore… what is basically the answer? It turns out that the plant fat, you know, causing increased breast cancer risk when fed at higher levels, it increases oxidation for one thing. The animal fat doesn’t.”

            Then he goes on to say it’s ALL ABOUT THE PROTEIN. lol

            From the man’s own mouth.

          • Thea

            Thanks! I’m going to check it out.

        • crazygemini12

          By really great, do you mean “really terrifying”? :D It is a good book, though. 

          • Paleo Huntress

            Totally! It’s good for putting under the leg of my old table.

        • Paleo Huntress

          I find it interesting that everyone points to big bad meat and dairy, but conveniently forgets Big Ag and most of Big Food along with it, as processed foods depends largely on grain agriculture. Wheat futures are valued at TWICE the price of all the gold mined each year. Do you REALLY believe they wield no direct influence?

          Which foods have gone up significantly in the American diet in the last century?… here’s a hint, it isn’t fresh meat and saturated fat. So knowing this, and knowing that our modern diseases are a product of the last half of this century, the idea that these foods have somehow become toxic is ludicrous.

          The China Study is NOT a study. It’s a book. And it was so poorly supported that no reputable scientific publisher would touch it, hence it’s publication by a Sci-Fi publisher.

    • HemoDynamic, M.D.

      Thank you very much for providing all your work FREE!  That is just incredible that you can do that! 
      I truly appreciate it and hope that others take advantage of your publishings.

      Here’s to the Paleo pleasures of Plants!
      ;-}

    • Rayball75

      So much conflicting information out there…

      1.5-Million-Year-Old Skull Fragment Shows Oldest Evidence of Regular Meat Consumption – http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/article00631.html

  • BPCveg

    The following are the concluding two sentences from the most relevant article cited (i.e. ‘Evolution of dietary antioxidants’ by Benzie), namely:

    “The hypothesis that higher intake of plant foods is beneficial to human health because this increases antioxidant defence against oxidative damage is logical in evolutionary terms, especially when we consider the relatively hypoxic environment in which humans may have evolved. However, it will remain a mere hypothesis unless validated scientifically by interdisciplinary research that considers not only what we are, but also how and why we became so.”

    In other words, the scientist who publishes on evolution of diet must admit that such appeals to evolution are highly speculative and only can be a ”mere hypothesis” until validated by ”interdisciplinary research”.

  • Thea

    I have never been persuaded by the idea that we should eat like our ancestors.  But I know that lots of people put faith in this kind of thing.  Thus, I greatly appreciate this video for providing a balance to the claims made by paleo diet proponents.  I would guess that the information in this video is just as valid as any claims made by paleo diet proponents. 

    Do we 100% know exactly how humans ate so long ago?  We keep finding out more information (which leads to more plant-plant based answers).  For example, bread doesn’t stick around in the archeological sites as well as bones.  But I read an article about a site that found that humans were eating a bread-like food many thousands of years before previously thought.  The point is: This area of knowledge continues to evolve.  To form one’s diet around such suppositions one way or the other seems really silly to me.  But if you are pursuaded by such arguments, then you owe it to yourself to check out the “other side of the story” as is partially shown by this video.

  • Guest

    The whole argument seems moot to me. I don’t care what our ancestors supposedly ate in the prehistoric past. I think it’s presumptuous for us to think that we can determine their diet on such sketchy evidence and even arrogant if we insist on specific evolutionary dogma the way my molecular cell biology professor does. We not only cannot be sure of the unwritten past, but we’ve left observational science behind. It’s also possible that we can no longer eat as they might of since such foods may no longer be available or polluted in which case we eat higher up on the food chain at our own risk.
    Since everyone else is speculating about our diet from the dim past, I’ll offer my speculation too: men were too slow and too weak to hunt down animals, birds or other game and so they mostly confined themselves to the colorful fruits that they could easily see with their color vision, and were attracted to, along with other plants which were easy to identify and harvest. They may have been able to get clams or mussels if they lived near the ocean- although ancient taboos may have prevented them from eating such foods- which still exist among orthodox Jews. And so, they may have well been vegan for the most part.
    Instead of speculation, I think it’s better to look at research in the here and now to determine which foods are best for our health. That’s what this site does- and guess what the conclusions are?

    • Veganrunner

      Well said! “it’s better to look at research in the here and now”

  • Toxins

    For those who advocated a paleolithic diet, I wonder why. I find it interesting that people idealize these ancient peoples. They had no knowledge of nutrition at all, they just ate whatever was available, it wasn’t about health and nutrition it was, eat whatever you can find to survive. They had very short lifespans lasting to the ripe age of 30 as well so I wouldn’t idealize that, we have a lot more knowledge about what foods are healthy for us and we have the variety available to us to choose, they did not have that luxury.

    Also, I would highly recommend Dr. Greger’s e book on the irrationality of carbophobia.
    http://atkinsexposed.org/

    • MD

      Let’s not fall prey to an arrogant presentism. Try reading the following:

      http://www.amazon.com/Health-Civilization-Professor-Nathan-Cohen/dp/0300050232

      • Toxins

        I am not interested in buying a book to read the opinions of a doctor. Carbophobia is a science based free e book with all studies available for viewing.  If you have some evidence to share, meaning actual studies from peer reviewed medical journals, then my ears are open.

        • MD

          First, before you argue with someone try reading what I posted, instead of reactively making an assumption (sounds like a real scientific disposition. 

          Mark Nathan Cohen IS NOT A DOCTOR. Excerpt from Wikipedia: “Mark Nathan Cohen is an American anthropologist and a professor in the State University of New York.[1] He has an A.B. degree from Harvard College (1965) and a Ph.D. degree in anthropology (Columbia University, 1971). His areas of research and teaching include human evolution and demographic history, cultural evolution, biology, medical care and forensic anthropology. He has written several books in the field of population growth and life expectancy.”Second, don’t hind behind “research” as if it is not an ideologically and/or ethically compromised academic practice (and actually watch this link before you decide to be a keyboard warrior and critize it without knowing what it is):http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe.htmlThird, I’m not a paleo-enthusiast (they’re just as close-minded as you apparently are). Rather, I am skeptic who does not get too cozy touting one point of view.

          • Toxins

             Ah, sorry. Usually I come across paleo proponents who show me books and websites. I jumped to the conclusion you were part of the usual crowd.

        • Paleo Huntress

          Paleo diets aren’t carb-phobic. That is an uneducated and ignorant postion to take.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jdmumma JD Mumma

        Q1: Are you claiming someone fell “prey to an arrogant presentism”?
        Q2: If yes, can you please make a specific reference (quote) to back up your claim.
        Q3: What specific inference and/or claim are you making that will be supported or refuted by us reading Mark Nathan Cohen book that you provided a link to?

    • VeganEngineer

      Hi there, I actually have your same thoughts and questions on the idealization of the paleolithic diet. I came to this conclusion based on what I have read: supposedly sound science determined that our DNA as humans evolved and became what it is now primarily under the palelithic era, hence we should consider carefully what those people ate, to mantain our DNA as sound as possible.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jdmumma JD Mumma

        “consider carefully what those people ate” yes…
        but base and entire diet around mostly: cherry picked research, hypothesis (not-theory) and non-empirical evidence… hmmm maybe not!
        I am not implying all, like I said said “mostly.”

    • Guest

      Hi there, I actually have your same thoughts and questions on the idealization of the paleolithic diet. I came to this conclusion based on what I have read: supposedly sound science determined that our DNA as humans evolved and became what it is now primarily under the palelithic era, hence we should consider carefully what those people ate, to mantain our DNA as sound as possible.

    • Liz

      Well that’s because the “traditional” groups of people that have been studied, have much MUCH lower and sometimes none of the western diseases of civilization. And THAT is very interesting, despite having elderly people as part of their population.

      • Toxins

        Dying young is not something to view as ideal. What we should idolize are diets that have sustained a population to live as long, if not longer then current Americans and be free of degenerative diseases. Back in the 1950′s the Japanese rural Okinawan group of people had the most centenarians per capita. How did they live so long? Here is their diet

        Caloric Restriction, the Traditional
        Okinawan Diet, and Healthy Aging

        The Diet of the World’s Longest-Lived People and Its Potential Impact on Morbidity and Life Span

        Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1114: 434–455 (2007).

        TABLE 1. Traditional dietary intake of Okinawans and other Japanese circa 1950

        Total calories 1785

        Total weight (grams) 1262

        Caloric density (calories/gram) 1.4

        Total protein in grams (% total calories) 39 (9)

        Total carbohydrate in grams (% total calories) 382 (85)

        Total fat in grams (% total calories) 12 (6)

        Saturated fatty acid 3.7

        Monounsaturated fatty acid 3.6

        Polyunsaturated fatty acid 4.8

        Total fiber (grams) 23

        Food group Weight in grams (% total calories)

        Grains

        Rice 154 (12)

        Wheat, barley, and other grains 38 (7)

        Nuts, seeds Less than 1 (less than 1)

        Sugars 3 (less than 1)

        Oils 3 (2)

        Legumes (e.g., soy and other beans) 71 (6)

        Fish 15 (1)

        Meat (including poultry) 3 (less than 1)

        Eggs 1 (less than 1)

        Dairy less than 1 (less than 1)

        Vegetables

        Sweet potatoes 849 (69)

        Other potatoes 2 (less than1)

        Other vegetables 114 (3)

        Fruit less than 1 (less than 1)

        Seaweed 1 (less than 1)

        Pickled vegetables 0 (0)

        Foods: flavors & alcohol 7 (less than 1)

        Data derived from analysis of U.S. National Archives, archived food records, 1949 and based on survey of 2279 persons.

        Some points:

        Their diet was 85% carb, and 6% fat. Sweet potatoes (a Japanese sweet potato) made up almost 70% of their calories. Nuts were less than 1% of calories (the equivalent of 1/10 of an ounce a day) Oil was less than 2% of calories (which is about 1 tsp a day) and sugars were less than 1% of calories (less than a tsp a day)

        The total animal products including fish was less than 4% of calories which is less then 70 calories a day. That is the equivalent of around 2 oz of animal products or less a day

        • emmarsh

          Wow, that’s a lot of sweet potatoes! Thanks for passing this info along. I had no idea what specific foods the Okinawans ate.

    • Paleo Huntress

      Precisely. They ate what was available. They evolved on what was available. If we all ate today based on what was local and seasonally available, we’d likely be healthy too. No sugar, fruit for a few weeks, berries, veggies and leaves all Summer, and meat, fat and tubers/squashes in Winter. Perfect! Our metabolisms developed alongside the seasons, and our environments. The idea that the foods we evolved eating are irrelevant is wishful thinking.

  • veggiedude

    I hope someone edits the wikipedia page on the subject – it still maintains that “Paleolithic hunter-gatherers consumed a significant amount of meat and possibly obtained most of their food from hunting” – and then it sites a source which no longer exists.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jdmumma JD Mumma

      Seems that maybe the Texas Sharp Shooters fallacy may be on the loose at that Wikipedia page! ;-)

  • Guest

    Just curious about people who live in cold regions where plant life was not readily available, like Eskimos.  Would natural selection ultimately produce different body types based on the region our ancestors came from?  Have any studies compared the impacts of different diets taking into consideration ancestry and climate? 

    • Guest II

       Eskimos don’t do so well; they’re the shortest-lived people in North America and often suffer from nose bleeds and hemorrhages due to getting too much fish oil. They’re a good reason for not going paleo- or living under such extreme unnatural contidions.

  • Lkthomps

    If part of the argument is that the meat people eat today is very different from the meat paleolithic humans ate, can’t the same be said about the plants we eat today? I am a huge advocate of the whole plants based diet but what do I say to my friends who are going “paleo” and say that our ancestors didn’t eats beans or many grains and that our bodies are not suited to digest these??

    • Derby City Vegan

      I am bewildered by claims by our carnivorous friends that before the development of agriculture humans did not eat grains or legumes.  This really makes little sense.  People would not bother to domesticate foods that they were not already eating.  You might also want to visit John McDougall’s website.  In some of his recent lectures he makes reference to more recent archeological studies in which researchers reported finding starch grains between the teeth of archaic humans.  He also mentions genetic studies that  claim that humans have more copies of the genes for amylase than other great apes strongly suggesting that humans are designed to digest starch.

  • R Ian Flett

    One issue that is usually overlooked is whether a diet that is optimal for reproductive success is necessarily optimal for longevity. Males of many species often live fast and furious lives in order to spread their genes. It has been suggested that there is a trade off for this in the form of an earlier demise. Once longevity becomes valued over fertility a different dietary strategy might pay off such as less high energy food.
    It has been noted, for example, that higher methionine intake aids fertility, but probably reduces one’s lifespan. 
    Meats are highest in methionine. Draw your own conclusions.

    • http://poxacuatl.wordpress.com/ Strix

       That’s an interesting view. I’ve not thought of it exactly that way, but it makes sense: We are a continuously evolving species.

      It’s odd that we are striving for longevity for existence on a planet/in an environment we are destroying.

      Let’s hope Mars provides some breathing space; at least we’ll be healthy and prepared to destroy  her too.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jdmumma JD Mumma

      Being “suggested” does not qualify in science as a theory, hypothesis maybe, but not a theory. Presenting only two options – reproduce and live short or lower reproduction and live longer – may fall under presenting a false dichotomy (aka false dilemma).
      There are many elements to both fertility and longevity and methionine is one but not the primary.

  • Karl Young

    Thanks as always, Dr. Greger, for the great public service you provide (and I enjoyed your talk at the SF Vegfest this week). This video is particularly helpful as watching the mountain of information and reference starved testimonials that the paleo people are able to muster on public sites like Amazon when a new paleo book comes out is pretty frustrating. Restoring some balance is refreshing even it might not match the volume of noise that we’re all exposed to.   

  • http://www.facebook.com/oliver.h.perry.5 Oliver Hugh Perry
  • Ww131

    Speaking of arsenic in animal products, what about the arsenic in rice?

  • Dave Novakoff

    I’m a vegan who does CrossFit, and everyone else at the gym is into Paleo like an addiction.  I hope we vegans don’t come across like that, but I bet a lot of us do.

  • Rayball75

    So much conflicting information out there…

    1.5-Million-Year-Old Skull Fragment Shows Oldest Evidence of Regular Meat Consumption – http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/article00631.html

  • http://www.facebook.com/clairejones.email Claire Jones

    Clearly, we’re meant to eat a diet that’s not trying to kill us

  • Robert

    Does the Primal Blueprint fall within the Paleo / Atkins category? I tried to talk a few friends out of it on that assumption. I tell them the whole-food, plant-strong has worked well for me, according to my waistline and biometrics.

    • http://www.DonForresterMD.com/ Don Forrester MD

      Hadn’t heard about the Primal Blueprint yet. Perused the website and looked a material/reviews on Amazon. I think it is fair to say it falls in a similar category but Atkins wasn’t pushing processed supplements that I was aware of. I would stick with your approach which the best scientific, archeological and clinical studies support at this time. It is also consistent with our knowledge of human physiology and biochemistry. Your approach is also consistent with our design as “hind gut fermenting” herbivores with the modifications from our great ape relatives of more amylase genes (to digest starch) and more volume in our small intestine to absorb starch. Of course the science is changing so you have to keep tuned to NutritionFacts.org. Congrats on your improved health and your diet which is also good for the planet and reduces suffering of other sentient species.

  • http://www.facebook.com/karen.harris.96742277 Karen Harris

    Dr. Greger – A friend has lost 40 pounds on the “Whole 30 Diet” – one in the family of Paleo diets out there. She commented that my plant-based diet was more inflammatory than hers, because of the beans and legumes. Are my beans and lentils inflammatory? Thank you! I watch your videos daily and apply the knowledge gained.

    • Dr. Connie Sanchez, ND

      Your friend is probably referring to the net acid-base load on the kidneys. Foods with a high net acid load are meats, dairy, fish, grains and most beans and legumes. Foods with a net alkaline (base) load are fruits and vegetables. High-protein diets increase net dietary acid load and acidify the urine. Conversely, diets high in fruits and vegetables have been proposed to be associated with a greater degree of alkalinity.(1)

      As to bean being inflammatory one has to take the whole diet into consideration. A plant-based diet, high in fruits and vegetables, with the addition of beans/legumes and whole grains tends to be a more alkaline and more anti-inflammatory. A diet with few fruits and vegetables tends to be more acidic and inflammatory. The key is to have a high volume of frutis and vegeables in your diet.

      1. Minich, D., et al. Acid-Alkaline Balance: Role in Chronic Disease and Detoxification. ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES, jul/aug 2007, VOL. 13, NO. 4.

  • http://twitter.com/2rejuvenate Ranjan 2 Rejuvenate

    I think a separation of emotional sentimentality and fact is more important than separation of State and Church!!
    Our diets are 99% sentimentality & familiarity and 1% fact
    Ranjan

  • Martin351

    Though I agree with much of what Dr Greger says in many of his articles, this whole paleo diet thing seems to speak for itself.

    I’ve read tens of thousands of personal stories/articles in regards to it all having benefits. Honestly, I’ve never read one thing showing anything negative about it. To be clear, what I mean negative is those who actually understand what it entails. Many people mistake it for an Atkins diet which many know how is horrific for a long-term solution and dangerous.

    All the paleo diet states is no:

    - Legumes
    - Grains / Starches
    - Dairy
    - Soy
    - No processed foods
    - No fatty meats

    That’s pretty much it..

    So instead of looking at a typical American dinner of say meat and potatoes followed by pop. Or going out for burgers and fries.. you may opt for the following..

    Leaner cut of the meat or chicken, pile of veggies, lemon water or a juice (if you can find one with little to no sugar)

    Most people love meat and lean cuts of chicken and beef, as well as, fish work for the paleo eating style. The challenge is though eliminating the filler foods like rice, spaghetti, potatoes, and things of the like.

    When I say the paleo diet speaks for itself, I go by the best research out there.. the same thing somebody posted above.. the “here and now” research:

    In my line of work I meet and befriend a lot of people, and I know a fair bit of both vegetarians and vegans, as well as, those who follow the paleo diet. I’m the type of person that gets fascinated with this type of thing and tends to ask a lot of questions.. this is what I found:

    - All people who follow either Vegetarian or Vegan (about 105 of them), all say their energy is overall better but still lacks at times, suffer from intestinal problems, and stalled weight loss (for those whom carry that goal). Some irritability. A need for supplements to balance out their nutrients as some cannot simply eat enough food to get their nutrients. Though there were handful to the extreme in either direction, this is the general consensus

    - All people who follow the paleo diet (about 60 of them) every single one of them had all their energy come back and stay throughout the day (no lag or energy spikes), continued weight loss (for those carrying the goal), general feeling good (no anger or irritability), no need for supplements. This was common for all of them.

    The people from the paleo family seemed happier, more full of life, more energetic, with less chronic illnesses. Though some people on the other side could match this, most of them were not at the same level. There is something to be said for this.

    As I said, the here and now research speaks for itself.

  • Hannah

    Even locally raised animals used for consumption, are not immune to being exposed to chemicals. If a farm is surrounded by other farms that use chemicals, there is likely to be cross contamination.

  • katrubie

    I have read all these comments about paleo diets and I cannot help but suggest that a paleo diet may have in fact been nutritionally deficient in nutrients. It is not like the paleo people had a supermarket available to them where they could choose from a diversity of foods from different regions. They would have been restricted to the food that grew naturally in the area in which they lived and to the seasons in which they grew/migrated. They did not have food preservation and probably did not cook either, so I am not sure how varied their diet was even amongst potentially edible foods that could not be eaten raw (at least not in large quantities). Thus, the paleo diet was probably malnurishing in every way. When we talk of a paleo diet today, we have more choices in food, because we have the supermarket to broaden our food choices. It is hardly fair to compare the past diet (which we honestly know very little about) with a modern version of the diet. Perhaps we need to call it the Neo-paleo diet! ;)

©2012 NutritionFacts.org - All Rights Reserved | In partnership with the Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Contact Us