Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Daily Low-Carb Support > Paleolithic & Neanderthin
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91   ^
Old Thu, Feb-21-08, 23:33
frankly's Avatar
frankly frankly is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,259
 
Plan: VLC
Stats: 295/220/160 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 56%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kallyn
...Fossilized human remains can be chemically analyzed for their carbon and nitrogen isotope content which determines whether the owner's diet was meat or plant based. Usually, the bones show evidence of varying levels of dietary plant matter. http://www.nature.com/nature/journa...s/319321a0.html and http://luna.cas.usf.edu/~rtykot/Bone.html


Not sure what to make of the first link; I don't see anything in useful in it... maybe I'm not clicking on something... can you cut and paste the part you think matters? As for the second link, it talks about Bone Chemistry, but I couldn't find anything in it, indicating there were paleo plant eaters. Again, maybe I missed it, perhaps you can point me at it.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #92   ^
Old Thu, Feb-21-08, 23:37
frankly's Avatar
frankly frankly is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,259
 
Plan: VLC
Stats: 295/220/160 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 56%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarlach
...I think I get frankly. He just loves to stir up us hardcore paleo's


I don't know Tarlach, I'm kinda thinking eating fruit and vegetables is softcore paleo
Reply With Quote
  #93   ^
Old Fri, Feb-22-08, 00:24
frankly's Avatar
frankly frankly is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,259
 
Plan: VLC
Stats: 295/220/160 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 56%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kallyn
But to completely discount every other piece of evidence that shows we are also adapted to a certain percentage of plant food is, to me, disingenuous at best.


Well, I have a bit of a hard time with that, it presupposes that I've been confronted with some incontrovertible "evidence" and so far my jury's still delibertaing on what I've seen. I sure would like to see some evidence of a lower-middle paleolithic, human ancestor, that ate plants. So far everything that gets thrown my way when the topic comes up, has been play-along nonsense like "ethnographic evidence", or examples from the neolithic or newer. Mostly I seem to be confronted with assumptions, opinions and theories, but I have a hard time considering any of it scientific evidence. That being said, I haven't come up with any strong evidence to support my side either; I'm still digging and reading, learning and experiencing, and I'll continue to do so. So far I'd say the largest part of my belief in carnivourism is instinctive, based on how I feel and how my body has responded. Anyway, I'm somewhat dismayed by "disingenuous at best", I'm quite sincere and I believe you and many others here are as well. I think it's a unfair to dismiss my views as insincere, just because we're not necessarily on the same page when it comes to vegetables.

Anyway, thanks again, I appreciate the efforts you've made, and look forward to reading more of your thoughts on the paleolithic WOE.
Reply With Quote
  #94   ^
Old Fri, Feb-22-08, 09:30
kallyn's Avatar
kallyn kallyn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,998
 
Plan: life without bread
Stats: 150/130/130 Female 5 feet 7 inches
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Pennsylvania
Default

Sorry, I didn't mean that all my links showed evidence of plant-eating. I was providing them just to show that I wasn't off my rocker. For instance, the bone isotope analysis pages show that it is actually used as a diet reconstruction tool and that it's not just me making spurious claims that such a thing can be done. I had originally intended my post to be short and it just kind of got away from me. I can try to find some better information about the issues you raised if you are interested. Unfortunately, most of my own opinions were formed from the information I got in classes when I was an undergrad minoring in anthropology so I don't have discrete references saved for each point (lecturers aren't great about citing the research they use in talks). Also, I moved recently and don't have my textbooks anymore (they are several states away in my parents' house).

I share your frustration with finding much of anything that is truly old (for example, re: coprolites). The sad fact is that since we are in America, the preponderance of work is done on American sites...which are very young in comparison to other places. Work is done all over the world, of course, but it's usually done by people more local to the area so most of the research that comes out of it isn't written in English.
Reply With Quote
  #95   ^
Old Fri, Feb-22-08, 10:28
Thinny Thinny is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 152
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 300/225/150
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: BC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankly
The second link doesn't seem to say anything other than what coprolite analysis is. The first link doesn't seem to have anything about paleo dung that indicates plant eating...
I continued down and went through every single one, the oldest that indicates humans eating plants is example 13. I couldn't find anything in there that would indicate paleo peoples eating plants. You can give it another skim, maybe I missed one.



P.S.: Sorry Thinny, nothing shocking, your blind faith was exactly that.

Tsk, Frankly, I didn't think your eyesight could be worse than mine! My condolences. Now here's what I got from the first link:
" Pollen Analysis of Prehistoric Human Feces from Mammoth Cave. In Archaeology of the Mammoth Cave Area, edited by P. J. Watson, pp. 203-249. Academic Press Inc., New York, USA.
AEU HSS E 78 K3 W34 Analysis of 17 coprolites from cave in Kentucky. The same specimens were examined for macros by Stewart (1974). Arboreal pollen types (including Pinus, Carya, Quercus) probably represent accidental ingestion but, when present in high percentage, may indicate seasonality (spring). Pollen from Cheno-Ams generally abundant; probably related to ingestion of Chenopodium seeds, since there is a high correlation between the two occurrences. Grass pollen only abundant when chewed grass plant material also present; no grass pollen from domesticates (i.e., Zea mays). Similarly, high abundance of Compositae pollen correlated with sunflower (Helianthus) seed remains. Occasional high abundance of usually rare (often entomophilous) pollen types may indicate the ingestion of flowers; these include Liguliflorae (perhaps from dandelions, consumption of flowers or greens), Acornus, and Liliaceae. In combination with seed remains, pollen evidence used to infer seasonality of some samples."

So the human coprolites contained CHEWED grass, lambsquarters (I eat those, too - chenopodium), sunflower (Helianthus) and FLOWERS! My FAITH isn't blind, Frankly.
Reply With Quote
  #96   ^
Old Fri, Feb-22-08, 13:56
frankly's Avatar
frankly frankly is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,259
 
Plan: VLC
Stats: 295/220/160 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 56%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinny
Tsk, Frankly,
So the human coprolites contained CHEWED grass, lambsquarters (I eat those, too - chenopodium), sunflower (Helianthus) and FLOWERS! My FAITH isn't blind, Frankly.


My goodness, read it again Thinny, tell me WHEN they are from? Can you find that in there? They're in Kentucky, so they're not likely paleolithic perhaps you're confused by their usage of "prehistoric". Anyway, I'm glad to see you changed your mind about playing; Welcome back!
Reply With Quote
  #97   ^
Old Fri, Feb-22-08, 14:41
frankly's Avatar
frankly frankly is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,259
 
Plan: VLC
Stats: 295/220/160 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 56%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kallyn
Sorry, I didn't mean that all my links showed evidence of plant-eating. I was providing them just to show that I wasn't off my rocker.


Nothing to be sorry for and I think you're firmly seated on your rocker. You and quite a few others here are always refreshingly reasonable, informative and open to constructive debate. Bone analysis seems to be one of better tools, and I'll admit that even the ones I've found with "mostly" carnivorous results seem to be too new to be relevent to the question.

Quote:
I can try to find some better information about the issues you raised if you are interested.


Absolutely! I don't want to impose on anyone, but I really would appreciate any evidence, for or against. I'm envious of your anthropology background, I've been doing so much related reading lately, that I'm starting to think I should parlay it into something useful and take some night courses for credit. It's always amazing to me how the closer you get to any particular field of study, the more you begin to appreciate its' depth and complexity.
Reply With Quote
  #98   ^
Old Fri, Feb-22-08, 17:03
Thinny Thinny is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 152
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 300/225/150
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: BC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankly
My goodness, read it again Thinny, tell me WHEN they are from? Can you find that in there? They're in Kentucky, so they're not likely paleolithic perhaps you're confused by their usage of "prehistoric". Anyway, I'm glad to see you changed your mind about playing; Welcome back!


So we're back to quibbling over semantics again. Prehistoric is a very open-ended term, and depends on where history began for that region. Or, for that matter, WHOSE history. Nevertheless, my research still says early man ate plant matter in varying quantity.
Reply With Quote
  #99   ^
Old Fri, Feb-22-08, 17:43
frankly's Avatar
frankly frankly is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,259
 
Plan: VLC
Stats: 295/220/160 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 56%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinny
So we're back to quibbling over semantics again. Prehistoric is a very open-ended term, and depends on where history began for that region. Or, for that matter, WHOSE history. Nevertheless, my research still says early man ate plant matter in varying quantity.


It's not a semantics argument Thinny, and you and I have never quibbled over semantics. I'm looking for evidence of paleolithic human plant eaters, especially in the lower and middle paleolithic period, I've been very clear about it. That example didn't even claim to be paleolithic.

Since you have research, please enlighten the rest of us with it. I, for one, would really love to see what constitutes "research" to you Thinny; because I'm pretty sure you mean it in the "diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc." sense of the word.
Reply With Quote
  #100   ^
Old Fri, Feb-22-08, 18:22
Thinny Thinny is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 152
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 300/225/150
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: BC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankly
It's not a semantics argument Thinny, and you and I have never quibbled over semantics. I'm looking for evidence of paleolithic human plant eaters, especially in the lower and middle paleolithic period, I've been very clear about it. That example didn't even claim to be paleolithic.

Since you have research, please enlighten the rest of us with it. I, for one, would really love to see what constitutes "research" to you Thinny; because I'm pretty sure you mean it in the "diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc." sense of the word.

If you can wade through the admittedly boring material quoted from this book
http://books.google.com/books?id=X-...+man&source=web
you might discover that the MALE point of view dominates in paleo archeology; that only megafauna as food are permitted to be mentioned by the male-dominated industry. The author, although not specifically mentioning plant life, takes the position that women researchers haven't had a voice in establishing the habits and preferences of paleo people, and there's more to be discovered. So,before I accept that paleo people ate ONLY meat, I'd like to read what the women have to say.
There'll be more to come on this matter if I can find it before March and I get frantically busy for 3 weeks, at least.
Reply With Quote
  #101   ^
Old Fri, Feb-22-08, 19:06
Thinny Thinny is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 152
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 300/225/150
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: BC
Default

Let's start with these tidbits from the Introduction to the Texas Panhandle Prehistory. It makes the following points:
Quote:
When the first documented European explorers stepped ashore on the Gulf Coast of Texas in 1528, they were possibly greeted by distant descendants of cultures first described by modern academics as “Clovis” cultures, or Paleo-Indians. The time period that included the Paleo-Indians is referred to by archaeologists as the Pleistocene, or Ice Age and ranged from about 1.8 million to about 8000 BC. When a timeline is developed that considers evidence and artifacts based on first inhabitants in the Panhandle region there is no evidence that shows any culture predating the Paleo-Indians. There is a blank space in the time line between Texas Panhandle Clovis cultures and the earliest cultures found on other continents such as Asia, Europe and Africa. New discoveries however, claim to trace North American inhabitants to as far back as 30,000 to 15,000 BC, and this challenges the “Clovis first” theory. Evidence of occupation in the Texas Panhandle earlier than 9,200 BC is non-existent. "

The Clovis culture developed and evolved at various stages in time and in various ways, depending on numerous variables such as their ancestry, availability of game, the region and it’s climatic conditions. The end of the Ice Age brought massive extinction among large Pleistocene mammals and this must have certainly caused a change in the way the Paleo-Indians in the Texas Panhandle lived. The latest known prehistoric, or pre-Columbian, culture that existed in the Texas Panhandle is the Antelope Creek-phase culture dated between 1200 and 1500 AD. This culture is evidenced by remains found at the Alibates flint quarries near Lake Meredith on the Canadian River, a central supply point for the distinctive flint, or chert, used in tools of various types. The Antelope Creek culture is known to have lived in large communities with permanent structures. They are considered to be semisedentary bison hunters who used horticultural technology, meaning that they planted and harvested seasonal crops. Similar examples that show the Antelope Creek-phase to be a typical culture can be found all along the Canadian River area. Archaeologists have excavated and recorded numerous sites. Another site, the first to be excavated in Texas history, is found near Perryton in Ochiltee County. "


Clovis man was considered a paleo Indian; but differed at various times and ages. Some were nomadic, some not. The non-nomads grew crops.
Reply With Quote
  #102   ^
Old Fri, Feb-22-08, 21:31
ProteusOne's Avatar
ProteusOne ProteusOne is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,320
 
Plan: Paleo/Low Cal
Stats: 000/000/200 Male 5 ft 10 in
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: NC, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankly
...That being said, I haven't come up with any strong evidence to support my side either; I'm still digging and reading, learning and experiencing, and I'll continue to do so. So far I'd say the largest part of my belief in carnivourism is instinctive, based on how I feel and how my body has responded.

At some point, we all have to consider this very idea. I've tried many different ways of eating, and if you had asked me even a year a go that perhaps I would be as close to carnivorism as I am today, I probably would have laughed in your face. However, I have tried almost pure carnivorism as well (95%) for 6 weeks, and I have to admit that I didn't feel my best for most of that time. Was it long enough? Maybe not. I'm not sure. But What I did learn is that I can do and feel better with much fewer veggies and carbs than I thought. And I have a suspicion that when the body is "not bombarded with" veggies all of the time, that it makes better use of them and their nutrients when it does get them. It makes sense, really, if you think about feedback loops and nutritional uptake.

There's no point in beating the dead horse here (MmmMmm, dead horse anyone?) that meat should be the mainstay of our woe. I get the impression that we all agree with that. We don't all agree, however, that theBear is the Messianic figure that some seem to want to make him. And, even more important, I don't think that most of us here are going to be weaned from our veggies without cold dead hands being involved. I tend to think of human evolutionary diet looking somewhat like a bell curve - with extremes of vegetarianism on one side and carnivorism on the other. Simplistic, yes. But it works for me and I'm comfortable with that. (Hey, anything that doesn't involve chemistry is okay by me )
Reply With Quote
  #103   ^
Old Sat, Feb-23-08, 07:02
frankly's Avatar
frankly frankly is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,259
 
Plan: VLC
Stats: 295/220/160 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 56%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinny
Let's start with these tidbits from the Introduction to the Texas Panhandle Prehistory. It makes the following points...Clovis man was considered a paleo Indian; but differed at various times and ages. Some were nomadic, some not. The non-nomads grew crops.


I read a good book recently called "The First Americans" (ISBN 0-375-50552-0) about the pre-clovis hunter/nomads in North America. I am aware it's been established that they were here 25,000 years ago (give or take) but it's still very late in the game paleo-wise. Notice, I didn't say because your example was from Kentucky that it couldn't be paleolithic, I just said it wasn't as likely, but more importantly it didn't claim to be either. Actually that book harkens back to my other point about early explorers and their biases, it's amazing to read theories about the "mound-builders"; for example, some assumed that they couldn't have been related to the "indians" because they were "savages" and therefore the mound-builders must have been an ancient civilized race, possibly one of the lost tribes of Israel, who had been wiped out by the savages. The other amazing thing, to me anyway, was that Thomas Jefferson turned amateur archaeologist and excavated one of the mounds himself. Anyway, back to latter upper-paleolithic, I think this period likely was the genesis of agriculture, but I don't really think it's as pertinent to the "paleo" diet for exactly that reason.
Reply With Quote
  #104   ^
Old Sat, Feb-23-08, 08:15
frankly's Avatar
frankly frankly is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,259
 
Plan: VLC
Stats: 295/220/160 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 56%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProteusOne
... However, I have tried almost pure carnivorism as well (95%) for 6 weeks, and I have to admit that I didn't feel my best for most of that time. Was it long enough? Maybe not. I'm not sure. But What I did learn is that I can do and feel better with much fewer veggies and carbs than I thought.


Yeah, I do kind of suspect that if you would have pushed past that phase, you would have started to feel better; but on the other hand, I also agree with you that we are not all exactly the same. Be it nurture or nature that accounts for the differences, maybe your health would have deteriorated if you stayed on that course, only you can be the judge of that; I can't really have a meaningful opinion about it.

Quote:
And I have a suspicion that when the body is "not bombarded with" veggies all of the time, that it makes better use of them and their nutrients when it does get them. It makes sense, really, if you think about feedback loops and nutritional uptake.


Again, to play Devil's advocate against myself, I found it interesting in reading about Stefansson, that though he still advocated a high-meat very low carb diet later in his life, he threw in the occasional grapefruit. I constantly wonder about the ascorbic acid thing, I do drink green tea, my intent was never to use it as a supplement for vitamin C, I've enjoyed it for many years, but regardless it provides some.

Quote:
There's no point in beating the dead horse here (MmmMmm, dead horse anyone?) that meat should be the mainstay of our woe. I get the impression that we all agree with that.


A. I'll have to try horse someday. B. Agreed.

Quote:
We don't all agree, however, that theBear is the Messianic figure that some seem to want to make him.


I find that quite a bit around here though, not just with theBear's views. In this thread alone, I can cite examples of people taking a position with someone for no apparent rational reason, it's a problem with human nature that we all have to overcome. With theBear, he was obviously more polarizing because of his extreme position, and I notice in that thread a few people seemed to become overly zealous, taking sides with or against him and leaving reason at the door. I think it's sad that some want to paint him as a Messiah, I think his "celebrity" as well as the position he took, seemed to bring that response out in a few people, which is unfortunate, but I doubt it was something he was aiming for.
For me personally, he is someone who has eaten carnivorously for 50 years, so it's hard to be dismissive of his thoughts on the subject. Also, his thread was my introduction to these forums, so it's probably imparted somewhat of a bias to my views. As for the sig, I like the responses it elicits, it's a great conversation starter


Quote:
And, even more important, I don't think that most of us here are going to be weaned from our veggies without cold dead hands being involved. I tend to think of human evolutionary diet looking somewhat like a bell curve - with extremes of vegetarianism on one side and carnivorism on the other. Simplistic, yes. But it works for me and I'm comfortable with that. (Hey, anything that doesn't involve chemistry is okay by me )



I think the bell curve is a good model for this, I guess the only questions are where our "optimal health" lives on that line and whether it's the same for all of us. I also agree on the vegetables, even the extremists, like theBear, still used plants, he devotes a lot of space on that thread to his pet favourites like coffee, vegetables as flavouring aids, macadamia nut oil, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #105   ^
Old Sat, Feb-23-08, 10:40
Thinny Thinny is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 152
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 300/225/150
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: BC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProteusOne
...

There's no point in beating the dead horse here (MmmMmm, dead horse anyone?) that meat should be the mainstay of our woe. I get the impression that we all agree with that. We don't all agree, however, that theBear is the Messianic figure that some seem to want to make him. And, even more important, I don't think that most of us here are going to be weaned from our veggies without cold dead hands being involved. I tend to think of human evolutionary diet looking somewhat like a bell curve - with extremes of vegetarianism on one side and carnivorism on the other. Simplistic, yes. But it works for me and I'm comfortable with that. (Hey, anything that doesn't involve chemistry is okay by me )


Horsemeat is still available in Canada, but the last horse slaughterhouse in the States was just closed down. Too bad - there will be more neglected and sick horses than ever, due to them being only expensive hobbies. Proteus, the changeover from primarily agricultural menu to carnivorous menu is extremely stressful on bodies, including potty issues, but eventually things even out. Although mankind can digest both vegetable matter and meats and does, he has a much more difficult time with grains. I am mildly celiac, but it had to just about kill me before I overcame my "red meat =cancer" bias from vegetarian leanings and switched to meats and proteins. But my switchover included processed meats, a bad idea. My diabetic husband can handle vegetables better than me - his blood sugars come down when he eats more low carb ones rather than extra meat or fat. (They say opposites attract, which is tough at mealtimes.) So you'll find us somewhere along the bell curve.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:38.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.