|
Satya
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #50 on: August 22, 2008, 10:12:11 AM » |
|
Yes, I have read about omega 3 FA being stored in women's hips. The abdominal fat being omega 6, I have not heard about. I have noticed less abdominal fat the last 9 months or so mostly raw all paleo, with increasing animal foods. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Raw Kyle
|
|
« Reply #51 on: September 12, 2008, 02:00:20 AM » |
|
Right, purpose tends to bring attraction, attraction does not always give purpose. Maybe. What do you think of that statement?
Do you mean that an animal could be randomly attracted to a purposeless feature? I'm sure it's possible but I think that would be around a lot less than purposeful features because there would be no evolutionary reason to keep it around and it would just randomly stay or randomly go. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
phatdave
Forager
 Offline
 United Kingdom
Posts: 3
|
|
« Reply #52 on: November 04, 2008, 10:37:36 AM » |
|
i really dont want to step on toes here (and i must admit i only read the first page of posts), i must admit in the last month i have varied my diet hugely. From 'healthy standard' to 'raw' to 'raw vegan' to 'essenes' to 'paleo' to a combo! So i just want to say that i am very opened minded, maybe too open..
My problem is this.
When it comes to pros of eating veg/fruit, i have 2 main ideas.
1) It totally fits in with paleo ideology/genetics/everything. We as a species have been herbivores for alot longer than carnivores, and although being an omnivore is part of our short term evolution (as far as I can determine) in the same way as cooking 'some' things, i cannot see why people would remove something that would be considered a staple in our 'natural' diet. I must admit that although there are 2 sides to alot of these sorts of arguements, there simply isnt a leg to stand on saying fruit is either bad for you, or saying that one must eat minimal amounts. It defies everything. Science/history/ideology everything.
2) To suggest that certain fruits contain trace amounts of 'dangerous' chemicals is potentially true, but using that as a basis for NOT eating them is simply crazy! Everything contains all sorts of elements, meat included, that if eaten in extreme ammounts would be bad for you. To eliminate tomatoes for example, for this reason, renders me somewhat speachless. To be honest i am somewhat speechless, and its 2am, i think i shall sleep on this and collect my thoughts!
sorry for poor spelling/grammar
In addition I in no way want to upset ANYONE. I am not looking for a fight on ideology or such. I simply want slightly more sound evidence for why people on this site seem to think meat is all good (which it is) but fruit/veg are not staples. OR EVEN DANGEROUS! Maybe i am missing the point? Please let me know.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
xylothrill
Guest
|
|
« Reply #53 on: November 04, 2008, 11:48:04 AM » |
|
Welcome David,
This started off as a list of all harmful plant products. Then, someone asked to keep it to paleo plants. The result was a list of anti-nutrients in paleo plants. Paleo plants don't have enough carbs or anti-nutrients to really be harmful. They contain enough nutrients to counter the anti-nutrients. For instance, high carb foods cause the body to use up vitamin C but berries have more than enough to compensate while grains do not.
Paleo fruits and veggies do fit in with paleo everything but not exclusively. The Inuit and other peoples, especially during winter months practiced a nearly, and sometimes completely carnivorous diet. The choice is totally up to you. We do have an omnivorous section here.
I'm a carnivore but have tried paleo omnivorism. The paleo plants didn't effect me negatively the way Neolithic carbs did. Neither did I see any benefit so I remain a carnivore. I can only speak for myself. There are some here who are much more knowledgeable than I. Perhaps they'll chime in with the facts you seek.
Craig
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TylerDurden
|
|
« Reply #54 on: November 04, 2008, 06:11:23 PM » |
|
The basic problem with fruit is that, in Palaeo times, it was very difficult, in most parts of the world, to get hold of enough of them, as there was no agriculture at the time at all. Having been in genuinely wild areas, I know that much fruit only appears seasonally for a few weeks each time, and one has to compete against other wild animals. I've gone on mushroom-collecting expeditions in the forests, and the amounts collected weren't comparable to the amounts I would have got via hunting wild animals. So, outside the tropics, minimal-fruit-consumption would have been the norm.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 04, 2008, 08:31:11 PM by TylerDurden »
|
Logged
|
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
|
|
|
phatdave
Forager
Offline
United Kingdom
Posts: 3
|
|
« Reply #55 on: November 04, 2008, 08:24:56 PM » |
|
hmm, interesting. This is a great rebuttel i think, thank you. You do not however address vegs, or other plant foods. Fruit would be considered a special treat, whereas brasicas, roots, and other plant foods would [potentially be found more in abundance. This of course would vary from place to place. Another thing to consider is that men were the hunters, women the gatherers. In paleo times anyway. And so during this era of critical social development, just because as men we would have undoubtably derived most of our share from meat, the female gathering portion would be just as important. In some parts of this world this ratio would be heavier on the hunter side (places where more meat), in other places more on the gatherer (more plant). I am just outlining again that I personally consider our 'natural' diet to be that of adaptable omnivores.
But this is deviating slightly. I mearly mean to say, I appreciate your answer, only I ask 'what about plants'.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TylerDurden
|
|
« Reply #56 on: November 04, 2008, 08:36:32 PM » |
|
The trouble with plants is that many contain anti-nutrients. While these are sometimes in small amounts, many plants are very high in antinutrients, such as grains/tubers etc. Even in tropical areas, plants wouldn't have been cultivated in any amounts, so there would have been only a limited supply. While plant-food-consumption went straight up in the Neolithic, it was minimal in Palaeo times - for example, there's 1 study which showed that the Neanderthals ate a diet with only a little plant-matter:- http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2000/06/12/Neanderthals000612.html |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
|
|
|
|
Satya
Guest
|
|
« Reply #57 on: November 04, 2008, 09:53:17 PM » |
|
1) It totally fits in with paleo ideology/genetics/everything. We as a species have been herbivores for alot longer than carnivores, and although being an omnivore is part of our short term evolution (as far as I can determine) in the same way as cooking 'some' things, i cannot see why people would remove something that would be considered a staple in our 'natural' diet. I must admit that although there are 2 sides to alot of these sorts of arguements, there simply isnt a leg to stand on saying fruit is either bad for you, or saying that one must eat minimal amounts. It defies everything. Science/history/ideology everything.
As a species, Homo sapiens sapiens has only existed for around 200,000 or so years. Thus the claim that we were herbivorous at all is simple untrue. I think the big problem of claiming that plant foods are problematic because so many contain antinutrients (and I really wish people who are going to make blanket statements about toxins and antinutrients would be more specific about what exactly in which foods they are talking about; for example oxidized cholesterol in cooked animal foods, etc) is that it ignores the fact that not one traditional hunter-gatherer society we have examined has ever completely shunned plant foods. It is very simplistic for modern humans in environmentally controlled structures, eating store bought foods, to make all sorts of claims; but I would bet top dollar that not many of you at all have suffered through extended famines where you were desperate enough to eat whatever was edible. Yet that is the overwhelming history of our species: feast and famine cycles. This choice of 0% carbs is just that, a choice. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
