Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45
  1. #21
    To play a contrarian viewpoint. It's impossible to eat Paleo without a bunch of other people eating the other stuff. The only reason Paleo is in focus is because the majority of people have acclimated to a different diet. Would Paleo even be a thing if it occupied the same place as the grain heavy diet we have now?

    To the article. Few things show up right off the hop.
    “the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism that curse our existence".
    Who the fuck said that we didn't have any of these issues beforehand? You read history and all you'll find is people killing each other over sex/disease/food/wealth.

    1. Heavy dependence on grains and other starchy crops

    The agricultural diet is based primarily on high-carbohydrate, low-nutrient-density crops like grains and potatoes, while the gatherer-hunter diet was comprised of a more varied mix of wild plants and animals, providing a better balance of nutrients.

    There are more than 1 agricultural society in history. There are thousands in fact throughout history (Mediterranean, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Phillipines all grew their own crops respectively). The Vikings for example were extremely skilled farmers. Guess what they grew? Grain (oats, barley etc...). Lots of it. Along with animals and other vegetables to supplement their diets
    https://www.historyonthenet.com/life-on-a-viking-farm
    https://www.danishnet.com/vikings/vi...rming-methods/
    https://www.historyonthenet.com/what-did-vikings-eat


    3. Higher population density encouraged epidemic disease

    There is thing called Germ theory that nobody knew about until the late 1880s. We have insane population densities now but we don't see people dying of Smallpox.

    “Besides malnutrition, starvation, and epidemic infectious disease, farming helped bring another curse upon humanity: deep class divisions,” Diamond said.

    There is no proof that class divisions didn't exist before farming became common."Because hunter-gatherers were nomadic they did not store food. They ate and shared whatever food they obtained each day. With no granaries or silos – or other concentrated food sources, like orchards or herds of sheep – there was nothing to guard, protect or fight over."

    That is also bullshit.Here is why.
    1. Class divisions have been a part of human sociological makeup since day one. Why do the Puerto Rican kids sit together? Why do girls sit with other girls and guys with guys? It's just the way people are and there is absolutely nothing that can happen to change it. 2. People die all the time. The variety of ways they die is simply too grand to blame it all on agriculture.3. Hunter gatherer societies do store food. How did the pilgrims survive in the early 1620s? How do the natives make it through the winter without dying every year when nothing grows for months at a time? (you make and store food it's not rocket science).

    “Only in a farming population could a healthy, non-producing elite set itself above the disease-ridden masses.”


    History shows otherwise. Tribes in West Africa (Togo, Ivory Coast etc...) were the primary sellers of slaves to the slave traders. How? By being the biggest and baddest aka "elite".

    The nutritional inequality of agricultural societies still exists on a global scale today.


    The Golden Rice project is aiming to fix this http://www.goldenrice.org/ Whatever you say about GMO's they do let the hungry eat which is better than starvation. Guess how we help end hunger? Farming.

    This author is a socialist.

    “To people in rich countries like the US, it sounds ridiculous to extol the virtues of hunting and gathering,” Diamond said. “But Americans are an elite, dependent on oil and minerals that must often be imported from countries with poorer health and nutrition. If one could choose between being a peasant farmer in Ethiopia or a bushman gatherer in the Kalahari, which do you think would be the better choice?”

    The author Jared Diamond is also the author of Guns Germs and Steel. Not exactly unbiased. I wouldn't say he's a thinker, more like a dreamer. Thinkers come up with solutions, dreamers just create stupidity.

    I don't feel like going farther. The author is simply attacking a seemingly "elite" society for being better. There are people that are better than others at certain things, why else do we have doctors/lawyers/anything requiring skill. Article doesn't cite any sources for Diamond's claims either.
    I've seen cleaner lines and sharper edges on a box of donuts --- Jon Payne

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NWFL
    Posts
    15,075
    To play a contrarian viewpoint.
    One problem is the author as you say assumes many things according to his bias. What is most disappointing is how many academics and scientists make assumptions of about early human and our homo ancestors. They use to assume that modern human and other extinct species could not interbreed. DNA work has proved different. Now they assume that modern humans do not wipe out the neanderthals. What nonesense. Older prehistoric skeletons from non-agricultural show injuries from weapons. We have always been an aggressive critter.
    In the about 9,000 yr old Kennewick Man skeleton
    Chatters found that bone had partially grown around a 79 mm (3.1 in) stone projectile lodged in the ilium, part of the pelvic bone.
    One who hammers his gun into a plow plows for those who do not....Unknown
    ...at the end of the day its not about anything else but YOU AND YOURS..... Gabe Suarez
    ....WANT not NEED is what America is all about. ..... Gabe Suarez
    Its not about how fast you can load, but about how well you can shoot ..... Someone being saved by a speed load is not something that has happened with any regularity. Gabe Suarez

  3. #23
    Today...if you eat (and live) like a hunter-gatherer, you will likely skip most of the age-decline and modern metabolic diseases that plague the industrialized west.
    W[/QUOTE]

    Paleo eating, which I learned and got motivated to try from the Tribe, has been a Godsend to me. 62 years old.I dropped from 230 to 205, gained muscle, normalized my BP, eating a ton of tasty food. Other diets never worked for me. I was considering testosterone but I don't feel I need it.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    In a positive state of mind
    Posts
    3,692
    Quote Originally Posted by barnetmill View Post
    I am a big tea drinker, but I have not really researched as to how it affects the body. Problem is I load it with sugar and diary products. The sugar I do need to drop for sure.
    I drink no coffee ever. In fact, one sip I had years ago gave me instant heartbearn. I say that in part to explain that I drink tea exclusively, and have since age 5 so I've done a little research.

    Firstly, the one risk factor is the absorption of tannic acid. Thirty plus years ago medical researchers from the UK investigated a tribe of Malay fishermen that had a high incidence of throat cancer to find out why. They discovered that not only did they drink only tea, but that they cooked their rice and all boiled foods with tea. Their research ended up proving that the extremely high level of tannic acid in their diet was the cause of the cancer, but it also proved that adding a small amount of milk to a cup of tea as most English heritage peoples (Aussies, Irish, Scot, etc.) do neutralizes the tannic acid.

    As for amounts of caffeine, my recollection is that tea has one quarter of the amount of caffeine as coffee (same portion sizes).

    As for Positives, tea is known to provide anti-oxidants that offer health benefits. One of many articles: https://www.health.harvard.edu/press...o-drinking-tea


    The absolutely worst thing you can drink is any "energy drink". Read the ingredients in Red Bull for instance, and you will know why.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    95
    While I do 100% agree with the discussion of diet and relative health this article spurred, the rest of it...

    Just a few observations:

    Looking at relative brain sizes between early hominids, there is no mention of the probability that as hominids evolved their brain usage went up, which would have allowed their overall brain size to decrease within no decrease in intelligence. Smaller brains require less fuel.

    This article uses strategically small sample sizes when talking life expectancy and overall health. It also doesn't take into account injuries, only disease and malnutrition. I would also say tracking hunter gatherer infant mortality rates would be very difficult. It wouldn't be a stretch to say they were higher than an early agrarian society.

    Disease was still present, it just couldn't get to epidemic proportions because the population wasn't focused. You can't say that there were not rats carrying plague or take your pick of animal to human transmission diseases that would routinely wipe out a hunter gatherer community.

    Im going to skip the socioeconomic because it's all a guess without history being kept, but there are two other 800lb gorillas this article doesn't mention.

    You can't talk about the shift from hunter gatherer to agrarian without mentioning the rise of animal husbandry. They go hand in hand.

    The other thing I found funny that this article doesn't touch on is "technology". Take your pick on the type, but while this article postulates all this free time hunter gatherers had vs agrarian, I've never seen an argument that technology would have progressed at the same rate if our ancestors wouldn't have settled down.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NWFL
    Posts
    15,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Cody C View Post
    While I do 100% agree with the discussion of diet and relative health this article spurred, the rest of it...

    Just a few observations:

    Looking at relative brain sizes between early hominids, there is no mention of the probability that as hominids evolved their brain usage went up, which would have allowed their overall brain size to decrease within no decrease in intelligence. Smaller brains require less fuel.

    This article uses strategically small sample sizes when talking life expectancy and overall health. It also doesn't take into account injuries, only disease and malnutrition. I would also say tracking hunter gatherer infant mortality rates would be very difficult. It wouldn't be a stretch to say they were higher than an early agrarian society.

    Disease was still present, it just couldn't get to epidemic proportions because the population wasn't focused. You can't say that there were not rats carrying plague or take your pick of animal to human transmission diseases that would routinely wipe out a hunter gatherer community.

    Im going to skip the socioeconomic because it's all a guess without history being kept, but there are two other 800lb gorillas this article doesn't mention.

    You can't talk about the shift from hunter gatherer to agrarian without mentioning the rise of animal husbandry. They go hand in hand.

    The other thing I found funny that this article doesn't touch on is "technology". Take your pick on the type, but while this article postulates all this free time hunter gatherers had vs agrarian, I've never seen an argument that technology would have progressed at the same rate if our ancestors wouldn't have settled down.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
    It is quite likely that larger brains need more energy and also it could be that hunter gatherers living in small bands or family groups may have to know and remember more than farmers. Just needs a lot more research to say.
    Neanderthals had brains as big if not bigger than the average human today. But how intelligent is a smaller vs a larger brain I will to leave that to neurologists that study such things. Many state that the human brain has gotten smaller, but that also depends on ht also for modern humans. Neanderthals were said to be shorter in ht and so relative to brain ratio they may have even bigger ratio wise of brain volume to height.
    Summary from google
    Cro-Magnons were the first humans (genus Homo) to have a prominent chin. The brain capacity was about 1,600 cc (100 cubic inches), somewhat larger than the average for modern humans. It is thought that Cro-Magnons were probably fairly tall compared with other early human species.
    From https://www.inria.fr/en/centre/renne...-vs-modern-man I can accept measurements of size as valid, but claim of reorganization of the brain, I wonder about that from the article below.
    Smaller and reorganized, our brain has evolved over 30,000 years.

    The results obtained show that the main specific characteristics of the brain of Homo sapiens are found in the fossilised specimens. However, they also show that the brain has decreased in size and has been reorganised in our species over the last 30,000 years. Today, our brain is smaller, lower and compressed at the level of the frontal and occipital lobes, while the temporal lobes and the cerebellum have become enlarged compared with our predecessors. This demonstrates the anatomical plasticity of the brain of Homo sapiens , as well as the complexity of the relationships between its size and shape and its cognitive capacities.
    Last edited by barnetmill; 06-12-2019 at 09:28 AM.
    One who hammers his gun into a plow plows for those who do not....Unknown
    ...at the end of the day its not about anything else but YOU AND YOURS..... Gabe Suarez
    ....WANT not NEED is what America is all about. ..... Gabe Suarez
    Its not about how fast you can load, but about how well you can shoot ..... Someone being saved by a speed load is not something that has happened with any regularity. Gabe Suarez

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    511
    The scientists in the article have an overly romantic idea of that time period.

    Making it seem that would casually be walking along, feel hungry and food would be readily available and all their attempts would be effortless gathering food-Hitting their target the first time. every time.

    Getting a glimpse into what it is like to try and survive through shows like Alone we see that it is not quite that easy. Even with more advanced knowledge and equipment. For Example fish that stop biting for no apparent reason and suddenly leaves you without a regular food source.

    Daily survival is also very hard work needing to find/built shelter, gather food & water, start a fire and then we have not even taken into account facing daily violence-From other humans and wild animals.

    All the people also appear to be in excellent health throughout the life, making life seem easy. But what if you slipped on a wet rock and broke a leg? How would you gather food? Even if your group stayed with you and waited till you heeled up, but your leg grew on crooked and you became slower and less cable as a hunter/warrior. Making you easier to pick of by animals/other humans.

    They also must have had to deal/struggle with some of the same emotions that we do today. What if you sucked as a hunter and your brother/neighbor always showed up with a catch-Would you not be envious of him even at some basic level/Desiring somebody`s women or possessions-Raids anybody. And surly there must have being power struggles with people challenging for leadership positions and questioning decisions, telling me that people could not have being happy all the time.

    It is not easy to be healthy and truly happy.It takes hard work and discipline and I think that is why people romanticizes more simpler times because it looks to them as if these people must not have concerned themselves with these emotions and was only focused on survival.

    Instead of hunkering back to simpler times people should be taking advantage of the amazing amounts of knowledge available to them now. Some of it even for free, which will allow them to improve their existence almost on a daily basis. Presenting them with opportunities to dream of and then strife for a better happier life.

    OSSU!
    Elfie
    HALFMAN HALFCAR

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    9,582
    Quote Originally Posted by P.D. View Post
    I drink no coffee ever. In fact, one sip I had years ago gave me instant heartbearn. I say that in part to explain that I drink tea exclusively, and have since age 5 so I've done a little research.
    If I gave up coffee you would be able to see the building fires from space and the body count would be staggering.
    Greg "Hyena" Nichols
    Instagram: tacfit_az
    Facebook: SI Instructor Greg Nichols

    #thinkinginviolence
    #tactisexual

    Always entertaining, mildly offensive
    IANative: Indeed, when you grab Brent (or he grabs you), it feels like liquid unobtanium wrapped in rawhide... whereas Greg is just solid muscle wrapped in hate, seasoned w/ snuff and a little lead.

    http://www.warriortalk.com/showthrea...he-Obscenities

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    In the good Old South
    Posts
    432
    That was an interesting article to mull over. I have to think on this one. I have to say that man has evolved to become more domesticated than his earlier counterparts by entering into the Agricultural Age. That is a given. I can see the pros and cons. Agriculture has allowed more people to live comfortably in a smaller area. That has caused cities to spring up, for instance. And that has lead to other things as well. I think about the Agricultural Societies of today faltering because of over population. Take the potato famine over in Europe that caused the mass migration and what is going on now over in Africa with the drought. Too many people depending on agriculture. But I imagine the same thing happened with the Paleo kind of life. Feast or famine.

    Thinking some more, the Bronze Age came about in the Hunter-Gatherer stage...Early man. This Agricultural Age has brought us cities. And those cities lead us into the Industrial Revolution, (with cars, engines, and steel), and expanded our horizons as humans. I think we are now in more of a Scientific Age, (going to the moon and beyond, vaccines, and the internet). I don't think all of this is possible if we had stayed in a Hunter-Gather stage. Progression would have been slower since people would have been fragmented and fewer. People have to work together to be successful. The Agricultural Age is the only way for man to have gone if he were to survive.

    So...there are pros and cons. I think am happier and better off in the Scientific Age eating my corn and paying my Industrial made dollars for Organic Meat and cutting firewood with my gas engine chainsaw.

    I also wonder if I were a Hunter-Gather...if my Glock would be wooden or bronze.

    I think a good conservation on this thread and more opinions please.
    Dave

    "If your sport does not put grease, blood, or dirt under your fingernails, then it's just a game!"

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    95
    Agreed this has been interesting and thought provoking.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •