Would eating a Stone Age diet make us healthier?

"Carmen" wrote in message
...
Mu-Pi wrote:
Please get your facts straight.

Why don't you enlighten us, Mikey? Clearly we lesser mortals could
benefit from your superior intellect. We await your wisdom...why
should the SP folks be the only beneficiaries?

Frankly, Sandy, you are not worth the time. For you to make such a
vapid statement shows that you are stupid rather than ignorant.
Sadly, stupidity is not curable.

You aren't very good at this, are you Varney?

Nor are you, sandy. Go ahead and keep changing your email address when you
post... I will keep plonking you.
*smirk*

The face is people are living over 70 years today, many of
them living on burgers and fries.


"Mu-Pi" wrote in message
...

"TerryR" wrote in message
...
I'll stick to the modern US diet. It may be deficient in
the
eyes of a lot of folks, but the life expectancy today
(baring accidents) is over 70 years. The life expectancy
of
the stone age hunter gather is estimated to be less than
30
years (baring accidents like being eaten by unfriendly
beasts.).


Not because of diet. Pleaes get your facts straight.

"TerryR" wrote in message
...
The face is people are living over 70 years today, many of
them living on burgers and fries.

Yes, but not because of diet only. The great advances are in sanitation,
medicine, disease control, quality of living etc.
In any event, it was quite possible for pre-Neolithic homo sapiens to live
to a ripe old age barring predation or. There are many digs turning up the
bones of people who had lived into their late 60's or more.

As well, why don't you look up the average life spans of people in present
day developing nations. Work your way back in time.

In any event, please... retain your diet as it stands. No one is forcing
you to change it, nor are they forcing you to read this news group.

"Mu-Pi" wrote in message
...

"TerryR" wrote in message
...
I'll stick to the modern US diet. It may be deficient in
the
eyes of a lot of folks, but the life expectancy today
(baring accidents) is over 70 years. The life expectancy
of
the stone age hunter gather is estimated to be less than
30
years (baring accidents like being eaten by unfriendly
beasts.).


Not because of diet. Pleaes get your facts straight.

"Jayjay" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:46:19 -0500, jmk
wrote:



On 12/4/2003 3:31 PM, Ignoramus24587 wrote:
jmk wrote:

Hehe! The same one that eats cauliflower (which as been around for
2000
years, but the Stone Age was 10000 years ago).


Does stone age diet require eating only vegetables that have been
available during stone age?

Actually, from what I have read, it does (or maybe it can depending on
your perspective). I know several people who are following this plan
and I read about it when a few of them changed their WOE. They may be
following a stricter interpretation that you are though. The refer to
these "new" foods as neolithic.

just curious - those that follow it to the strict sense - do they go
through feast/famine times like it really was? Times when you go
weeks on eating nothing but barries and tree bark and nuts because
that's all that cna be found?

Well, and the fact that stone age man was a SCAVENGER. Man was a lousy
hunter, most of the meat he ever got was the rotting flesh from already
killed beasts. Hey, I watch the Discovery Channel, I know what went on. : )

Hey, if you want to eat rotting flesh, that's one's perogative, I suppose. I
OTOH, love this era in our history where the food is safe and I won't die at
age 24. Yes, a person would have been a sernior citizen at age 30 back then.
Get real.

Martha

Purposely X POSTED TO 4 Ngs

We have enough discussions about diet in misc.health.diabetes, without
X-Posting your off topic Stone Age Diet argument into our group.
Please desist.

SM




-----------------------------------------------------------
You can tell those republicans sure do like the poor folks,
They just keep helping create more and more of them!
-----------------------------------------------------------

In article ,
Ignoramus24587 wrote:

In article , Roger Zoul wrote:
Which stone age person at a low fat diet? I doubt they'd trim the fat even
though a lot of meat then had less fat then they do today. Some types of
fish are very fatty.

I do not think that they trimmed the fat either, but I used lean meat
as an example to simulate lean game meat.

Have you ever seen venison? It has very little fat.

Well, as a lifelong deer hunter, I have seen venison all my life...well,
at least for over 40 years. Please define what you are calling "very
little fat"!

Most of the deer (whitetail) that I've killed over the years would, I
think, qualify as quite fat. The heaviest deer I ever killed weighed in
at 246 lbs and was fat as a hog! Of course, it was late November and he
was gorging on acorns, at the time, in preparation for the rut and the
coming winter...

True, venison has very little "marbling", such as is found in a beef
ribeye steak, for instance, but venison - even the wildest kind - can be
quite fat!

Stan

In sci.med.nutrition Bob M wrote or quoted:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:06:26 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:
Diarmid Logan quoted:

"I would recommend anybody to eat lean meat and raw vegetables," says
Toni Steer of the MRC human nutrition research unit at Cambridge. "But
what you're asking people to do is cut out a food group for which we
have a lot of evidence to show is good for your health."

Grains are *better* than an equivalent quantity of vegetables?

Where is all this evidence?

ISTM that grains are cheap and caloric - and are popular for those
reasons.

If you believe the food pyramid, it's healthier for you to eat a plate of
pasta than a plate of broccoli (or at least, you're supposed to have more
servings of the former than of the latter).

The 1992 USDA Food Guide Pyramid is complete nonsense.

The "New Modified Food Pyramid" on:

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/...1/pyramid.html

....makes more sense. It is based on fruit and vegetables.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

On 12/4/2003 8:47 PM, Don Wiss wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003, Patricia Heil wrote:


Sigh. The people who invented this know nothing about archaeology
or physiology. Modern humans developed in Africa eating the same
80-90% plant food diet as our modern cousins, the chimpanzee.


Yes, 6 million years ago we most likely did eat a 80-90% plant food diet.
But then we split off from the apes. Then two million years ago we
developed tools which allowed us to have a higher meat diet. This nutrient
dense food allowed us to get smarter and smarter. The Stone Age diet being
discussed is this diet that we ate from two million years ago until the
Neolithic era, which was 10,000 years ago, or less, depending on where your
ancestors are from.

Don donwiss at panix.com.

This is an interesting article about what people of that era actually ate:

Stone age man died in fairly good health
http://chealth.canoe.ca/columns.asp?...articleid=4467

"Dr. Bogin reports that today most people expend only 400 calories to
complete the day's chores. Stone age people lost 1,600 calories hunting
and gathering food.

"Nutritional anthropologists can pinpoint what stone-age people ate by
analyzing their bone and fossilized human waste. And how their nutrition
safeguarded them from certain diseases."

The article goes on to state that stone age people were protected by
things that they did not eat as much as by what they ate:
- "Possibly their major protection was a lack of sugar."
- "Stone age people also lacked excessive sodium."
- "Paleolithic man had phenomenal good luck to consume up to 150 grams
of fibre daily due to a diet rich in plant food."
- "Paleo's didn't eat significant amounts of saturated fat even in areas
where game was abundant. The bison who roamed the prairies were thin and
what fat they contained was largely unsaturated fat. In fact, Dr. Bogin
says some of their fat was Omega-3 fatty acids, the kind found in fish."

Here's another article that might be of interest:

Cave woman wisdom?
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m.../article.jhtml

"By studying ancient campsites and modern hunter-gatherers, scientists
have taken an educated guess about the cave woman's diet, which broke
down to about 35 percent meat and 65 percent plant food. Protein was
probably 34 percent, fat was at 21 percent and carbohydrates were at
about 45 percent."

The article pretty much summarizes it into a more protein, more fiber,
no refined grains, less saturated fat.


--
jmk in NC

On 12/4/2003 4:16 PM, Jayjay wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:46:19 -0500, jmk
wrote:



On 12/4/2003 3:31 PM, Ignoramus24587 wrote:

jmk wrote:


Hehe! The same one that eats cauliflower (which as been around for 2000
years, but the Stone Age was 10000 years ago).


Does stone age diet require eating only vegetables that have been
available during stone age?

Actually, from what I have read, it does (or maybe it can depending on
your perspective). I know several people who are following this plan
and I read about it when a few of them changed their WOE. They may be
following a stricter interpretation that you are though. The refer to
these "new" foods as neolithic.


just curious - those that follow it to the strict sense - do they go
through feast/famine times like it really was? Times when you go
weeks on eating nothing but barries and tree bark and nuts because
that's all that cna be found?

The people that I know on this type of diet (conveniently) skip that
famine stuff :-)


--
jmk in NC

Once upon a time, our fellow Diarmid Logan
rambled on about "Would eating a Stone Age diet make us
healthier?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Would eating a Stone Age diet make us healthier?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

This thread identifies all the kooks on these ngs, me excluded.

Just thought that you might want to know.