Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: The Paleolithic Hunter-Gatherer Diet

  1. #11
    Member Frostwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Online
    Thursday, December 28th, 2006 @ 11:23 AM
    Location
    Korpi
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Occupation
    Overcoming self
    Posts
    145
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    This all is very interesting, since who wouldn't be interested what their "building blocks" contain. As for me, I've lead a quite average diet, excluding the junk food, but including potatoes, meat, eggs and cheese (I don't drink milk but in morning cereals and such), but having a woefully small share of vegetables and fruits, which I am striving to increase in my food.

    I'm not an expert with nutrients, but does this Paleolithic diet include calcium at all? I don't know of any other sources for calcium other than dairy products, and as far as I know, calcium is used in strenghtening bones.

  2. #12
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    The Horned God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 30th, 2017 @ 08:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Irish
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Ireland
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    2,249
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Their is debate over how much calcium is required for general health. It has been recomended by the Americain National Academy of Sciences that people get 1000mg of calcium per day (rising to 1200mg after age 50) in order to insure bone health,( but people in some countries have an intake which is 1/3 of that and still have strong bones). There are other sources of dietary calcium apart from milk, in the paleo-diet these are nuts, fish and dark green vegatables (excluding beans) here's the full list of sources on pdf. Remember 1000mg per day should be enough for most people, and a reduced list.
    Food Amount Calcium

    Yogurt, plain, low fat 8 oz 415 (mg)

    Collards, frozen, boiled 1 cup 357 (mg)

    Skim milk 1 cup 306 mg

    Spinach, frozen, boiled 1 cup 291 (mg)

    Yogurt, plain, whole milk 8 oz 275 mg

    Cheese food, pasteurized American 1 oz 162 (mg)

    Cottage cheese, 1% milk fat 1 cup 138 (mg)

    Baked beans, canned 1 cup 154 (mg)

    Iceberg lettuce 1 head 97 (mg)

    Canned salmon 3 oz 181 (mg)

    Oranges 1 cup 72 (mg)

    Trail mix (nuts, seeds, chocolate chips) 1 cup 159 (mg)

    Almonds 1 oz (24 nuts) 70 (mg)

    Blackeye peas, boiled 1 cup 211 (mg)

    Green peas, boiled 1 cup 94 (mg)





    I personally haven't stopped drinking milk altogether, most North European people can tolerate lactose to a large extent, only a few get stomach cramps after a lick of ice-cream.

    The first time I ever heard of lactose intolerence was when I shared a house with a Basque girl who could not drink milk at all, the Basques are an ancient people and this might have somthing to do with it I suspect.


    Permanent lactase deficiency (the inability to produce the enzyme needed to break down lactose) develops in about 80-95% of blacks and Orientals. About 50% of Mediterranean are affected while only up to 15% of Northern Europeans develop lactase deficiency.
    To check if you are lactose intolerant or not follow the "The Horned Gods prescription" , simply buy a litre of full fat milk, wait until your stomach is fairly empty and start gluging it down. If you are severely LI your stomach will start to react immediately by cramping and spasming , if you are moderately LI the bloating and discomfort will start within about half an hour, and if you are only mildly lactose intolerant you will just notice some windyness after an hour or more, in this case you can if you wish continue to use dairy products but for the benifit of others don't repeat this experiment again!

    If, after two hours you have no noticable effects from downing 1 litre (2 pints) of milk in one go on an empty stomach then you are not Lactose intolerent in the least ,and if you are not worried about the saturated fat content and derfor the possible link with hearth disease and cancer (it never bothered the Masai herdsmen) then you can probably live off the stuff if you want.

    http://www.lactose.co.uk/intolerance/http://www.lactose.co.uk/intolerance/
    Close observation may result in feelings of horror, wonder and awe at world you find yourself inhabiting.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Náttfari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, January 25th, 2006 @ 03:26 PM
    Location
    64°N 22°W
    Gender
    Occupation
    Student
    Posts
    456
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    To check if you are lactose intolerant or not follow the "The Horned Gods prescription" , simply buy a litre of full fat milk, wait until your stomach is fairly empty and start gluging it down. If you are severely LI your stomach will start to react immediately by cramping and spasming , if you are moderately LI the bloating and discomfort will start within about half an hour, and if you are only mildly lactose intolerant you will just notice some windyness after an hour or more, in this case you can if you wish continue to use dairy products but for the benifit of others don't repeat this experiment again!

    If, after two hours you have no noticable effects from downing 1 litre (2 pints) of milk in one go on an empty stomach then you are not Lactose intolerent in the least ,and if you are not worried about the saturated fat content and derfor the possible link with hearth disease and cancer (it never bothered the Masai herdsmen) then you can probably live off the stuff if you want.
    Not lactose intolerant! I can drink a litre or more of whole milk easily. I doubt that it is healthy for me to do that often; 50 grams of extra fat are not really desirable, although they taste good.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, April 24th, 2009 @ 03:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    american
    Subrace
    nordish
    Location
    near njörd eriksson
    Gender
    Occupation
    full-time parent/exemplar
    Politics
    reality > reason > rights
    Religion
    no beliefs - knowledge
    Posts
    864
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    ortho-molecular bio-chemistry

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God
    ...if you are not worried about the saturated fat content
    and therefor the possible link with hearth disease and cancer...
    actually, there are no studies
    demonstrating a causal relationship
    between ingesting raw mammalian-sourced lipids
    and heart disease or cancer.

    cancer is from too-frequent cellular-replication
    and tattered genetic material.
    the easy solution is a surplus
    of all the amino acids in the cellular soup
    for translation and transcription.

    heart disease is mostly the scars of bacterial infections
    (usually poor dental hygiene) or chemo-therapy.
    optimal cardio-vascular structures are built from
    un-denatured mammalian-sourced proteins and lipids
    which contain all of the nutrients you need
    (in the most assimilable forms and ideal proportions).

    Quote Originally Posted by Náttfari
    I doubt that it is healthy for me to do that often;
    50 grams of extra fat are not really desirable...
    your cell-membranes need that fat
    to function properly, as do your glands
    (you do enjoy the effect of your hormones?)
    and your brain is built of fat.

    of course, if you alter the molecules
    of the mammalian-sourced proteins and lipids
    with heat, dessication, acids, salts or radiation
    - they no longer have the same shapes
    nor, consequently, the same effects.

    obviously, for example, fresh blood
    is quite different from blood that has been altered
    by any of the five methods above.

    twenty-five or thirty years ago,
    when researcher began to figure out the shapes
    of organic chemicals - ortho-molecular bio-chemistry began
    and, eventually, provided all of the answers above.

  5. #15
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    The Horned God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 30th, 2017 @ 08:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Irish
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Ireland
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    2,249
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    "actually, there are no studies
    demonstrating a causal relationship
    between ingesting raw mammalian-sourced lipids
    and heart disease or cancer"
    That's a very good point you raise.The word of interest being raw.
    once you cook just about anything organic its proteins begin to denature and of course any plant or animal matter that is chared or burned is automatically carcinogenic for that reason. Which is one of the reasons it has been impossible up to now to make a safe cigarette as smoke created by burning organic matter is always going to be potentially carcinagenic if inhaled.

    There is a lot to be said for the raw food diet if it can be made safe and apealing, as, for most of human existance most if not all food would have been consumed raw.
    The benefit of cooking is that is makes a wider variety of foods digestable by breaking down tough fibers and tissues. It also sterilises fairly well and kills off any organisms or parasites which might be lurking within the food. These advantage may however come at the cost of other unforseen dangers as already mentioned.
    I definately think that eating a high percentage of raw food is a good idea, as long as one knows what they are doing and is careful to avoid f.e contaminated meat, or vegtables like potatoes which are poisonous if eaten raw.
    Close observation may result in feelings of horror, wonder and awe at world you find yourself inhabiting.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, April 24th, 2009 @ 03:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    american
    Subrace
    nordish
    Location
    near njörd eriksson
    Gender
    Occupation
    full-time parent/exemplar
    Politics
    reality > reason > rights
    Religion
    no beliefs - knowledge
    Posts
    864
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God
    It also sterilises fairly well and kills off any organisms or parasites
    which might be lurking within the food.
    we never had ham before cold weather.
    my grandfather would wait until a cold-snap to slaughter pigs.
    he explained that freezing killed the trichinosis.

    the jenkins family that lived down the creek from us
    were stupid, had milky eyes and persistence coughs.

    my grandfather ascribed that
    to mister jenkins' uncontrolled impulse
    to eat pork even during the warm months,
    when it was impossible to freeze it.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, April 24th, 2009 @ 03:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    american
    Subrace
    nordish
    Location
    near njörd eriksson
    Gender
    Occupation
    full-time parent/exemplar
    Politics
    reality > reason > rights
    Religion
    no beliefs - knowledge
    Posts
    864
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God
    once you cook just about anything organic
    its proteins begin to denature...
    which explains the efficacity of raw (unpasteurised) milk.
    if the sugar were removed,
    it would be (almost) the perfect food.
    well, for teen-agers, it is
    (they burn all that sugar growing,
    adults turn it into adipose).

    glanbia does some thing like that,
    when they produce their provon 290 (whey protein).
    they use huge electro-magnets
    to separate the milk-sugars from the proteins.

    if you mix some raw cream and a bag of frozen raspberries
    with that (maybe freeze it), it is yummy.

    if you can not get raw cream,
    substitute flora's flax-seed oil.
    it is processed in a cool, dark,
    nitrogen-filled machine
    and kept in refridgerated storage.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, April 24th, 2009 @ 03:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    american
    Subrace
    nordish
    Location
    near njörd eriksson
    Gender
    Occupation
    full-time parent/exemplar
    Politics
    reality > reason > rights
    Religion
    no beliefs - knowledge
    Posts
    864
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    as concerned as we are
    about the expression of genetic material,
    providing the requisite building-material
    to replicate genes
    and express them
    would seem essential.

    in the late fifties,
    i was reading a magazine article
    that featured a picture of james watson.

    on the desk, next to him,
    was a lamp and on the lamp-shade
    was a hand-written note:
    dna>rna>protein.

    researching this cryptic formula
    led me to linus pauling's earlier
    and much more profound works
    on molecular bonding, the alpha helix,
    beta sheets and enzymes.

    which extended the formula to:
    dna>rna>protein>structure>function.

    once the details of transcription and translation
    had been deduced, it was obvious
    that a plethora of all the amino acids
    should be available in the cellular soup
    for one to achieve one's genetic potential.

    after reading several studies,
    from the teens and twenties,
    demonstrating a correlation
    between absent mammalian-sourced proteins and lipids
    and deformity, retardation and disease
    among southern negroes
    - i was certain of where to get all of those amino acids.

  9. #19
    Spirit of the Reich
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Ahnenerbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Volksdeutscher
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Y-DNA
    I-M170
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Gau Westmark
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Gemini
    Family
    Polyamory
    Occupation
    Herbalist
    Politics
    Ecological Geniocracy
    Religion
    Vedic
    Posts
    1,220
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    25
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    206
    Thanked in
    109 Posts

    Lightbulb The Stone Age, or Paleolithic Diet

    Europeans Descended From Hunters, Not Farmers, Study Says


    by James Owen for National Geographic News (November 10, 2005)


    Europeans owe their ancestry mainly to Stone Age hunters, not to later migrants who brought farming to Europe from the Middle East, a new study suggests.


    Based on DNA analysis of ancient skeletons from Germany, Austria, and Hungary, the study sways the debate over the origins of modern Europeans toward hunter-gatherers who colonized Europe some 40,000 years ago. The DNA evidence suggests immigrant farmers who arrived tens of thousands of years later contributed little to the European gene pool. Instead they left a cultural legacy by introducing agriculture some 7,500 years ago, the researchers say. The study's findings, published this week in the journal Science, were a surprise to the study team, according to anthropologist Joachim Burger of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, in Mainz, Germany. "I expected the distribution of DNA in these early farmers to be more similar to the distribution we have today in Europe," he said.

    "Our paper suggests that there is a good possibility that the contribution of early farmers could be close to zero," added co-author Peter Forster, an archaeology research fellow at Cambridge University, England. "If the ancient DNA results turn out to be valid and reproducible, [they] are very exciting indeed," commented Alex Bentley, an anthropologist at Durham University, England.


    Pottery Clues

    The team investigated mitochondrial DNA—a permanent genetic marker passed from mothers to their offspring—recovered from the teeth and bones of 24 skeletons from 16 central European sites. These ancient humans all belonged to cultures that can be linked to the introduction of farming practices that began in present-day Israel, Jordan, and Syria around 12,000 years ago. The researchers identified which cultures the subjects belonged to by the decorations found on their pottery. A quarter of the prehistoric farmers were found to share a mitochondrial DNA signature that is now extremely rare worldwide and has left virtually no trace on living Europeans. The apparent failure of these people to make their genetic mark stands in stark contrast to farming itself, which spread rapidly across Europe.

    A possible explanation, the researchers write in their study, is "that small pioneer groups carried farming into new areas of Europe, and that once the technique had taken root, the surrounding hunter-gatherers adopted the new culture and then outnumbered the original farmers." Cambridge's Forster added, "It's interesting that a potentially minor migration of people into central Europe had such a huge cultural impact." Archeologist Marek Zvelebil agrees, saying the DNA findings support evidence from pottery and other artifacts from the beginning of the Late Stone Age.

    "This is one of the first studies to actually examine the bones of ancient human beings who lived 7,000 to 8,000 years ago," said Zvelebil, a professor at the University of Sheffield, England. "Archaeological evidence indicates that what we had was cultural diffusion and a mixture of perhaps some immigration and local adoption of farming culture," he added. "There's been 30 years of debate about this point—how the farming way of life reached Europe and spread. "Small groups of people migrated from the Near East into parts of the East Mediterranean and central Europe. But in most other parts of Europe you had local hunter-gathering people adopting farming."


    Male Genes

    Other researchers are less certain about this theory, saying the farmers' male genetic material—known as Y-chromosome sequences—needs to be established first. They argue that colonizing male farmers might have taken up with indigenous European women, in which case mitochondrial DNA traces of their lineage could have been largely erased over time. Bentley of Durham University says this theory may hold true in part. "In many historical instances men in colonizing populations have intermarried with indigenous women," he said.

    Yet evidence from elsewhere in Europe supports the idea that the introduction of farming represents a cultural rather than a genetic exchange, according to David Miles, research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology in Oxford, England, and author of the book, The Tribes of Britain. "In northwest Europe the genetic evidence suggests [farming] came mainly as an idea and that the number of people moving was relatively small," Miles said. Most of the farmers in Britain, for instance, would have been native descendents of the hunter-gatherers, he said. "There's been a lot of arguing over the last ten years, but it's now more or less agreed that about 80 percent of [modern British] genes come from a very small number of hunter-gatherers who came in immediately after the Ice Age," he said.


    * * * * * * * *
    Why Only Some Became Farmers: A Global View


    By Noel Broadbent, Goran Burenhult, and Moreau Maxwell


    The transition from hunter-gatherer to farmer was one of the most sweeping events in the history of humankind. Most experts today agree that the impetus for this transition came from need rather than desire. Such a fundamental shift in the way of life led to major changes in social structures, and to the development of new religious systems - farmers' gods were different from those of hunter-gatherers. Increased sedentism created entirely new settlement patterns, and at the same time, population growth increased. Mobile hunter- gatherers have to restrict their group size, both for practical reasons-you cannot carry more than one child at a time during long journeys and in order to be able to survive when times are harsh. In a farming economy, on the other hand, as long as virgin land is available, more hands mean that more crops can be grown and more cattle raised, thus starting an endless circle of population growth leading to a demand for more food.

    The developing farming tradition was accompanied by a number of new phenomena. With increased population pressure came the need to control personal territory, and this created the risk of conflict. For the first time, evidence of aggression appears in the form of fortified settlements and ceremonial combat weapons-symbols of power and dominance. With this new emphasis on strength and aggression, women's status declined. In many places, inequality between the sexes had its roots in the social organization of the established farming societies.

    With large numbers of people living in the same area for long periods, problems of hygiene arose that were unknown to mobile hunter-gatherers. As time went on, the farming way of life also led to a far less balanced and less nutritious diet than that enjoyed by hunter-gatherers. The quality of stored food deteriorated as a result of infestation by rats and other vermin, creating a breeding ground for new, deadly strains of bacteria. Epidemic disease appeared for the first time.


    At the Crossroads


    Farming communities were much more vulnerable es to climatic fluctuations than were hunter-gatherers. The possibility of storing grain and keeping domesticated animals led to a false sense of security. There was, of course, a reserve if crops failed, but this meant drawing on next year's seed for sowing, thus depleting stocks and paving the way for future catastrophe. Being dependent on a limited range of foodstuffs, farming communities found it difficult to withstand times of adversity. Farming and herding were also vastly more labor-intensive than hunting and gathering. Why, then, did people become farmers at all? And why did a number of peoples around the globe never adopt any form of farming? Only by understanding why people in certain parts of the world became farmers, can we understand why others didn't.

    At the end of the nineteenth century, it was thought that farming emerged as a way of life during the period known as the Neolithic for the simple reason that it was in every respect a superior way of life to hunting and gathering. Some individual, so it was believed, hit upon the brilliant idea of planting a seed in the ground in order to avoid having to wander around to find food. In the 1930s, the Australian archaeologist V. Gordon Childe put forward what appeared to be a more credible explanation in his so-called Oasis Theory, which postulated an event of such profound significance that he called it the Neolithic Revolution. He suggested that a period of extreme drought in Southwest Asia at the end of the last glacial period forced people to gather at the few oases and river valleys that remained, where their close association with animals and plants led to the process of domestication. Thus agriculture was born.

    But Childe's theory was not supported by later studies of Neolithic settlements, which were established in a range of different climatic and environmental settings. Robert Braidwood's work during the 1940s paved the way for a less rigid approach. He suggested that farming emerged largely in response to the ever-increasing cultural differentiation and specialization within different populations-in short, it was a matter of people adapting to local conditions. The oldest farming communities known are found in the so-called Fertile Crescent of Southwest Asia (the region stretching from the Levant, through the present-day states of Syria and Iraq, to the Zagros Mountains). In the early stages of these settlements, Braidwood found clear signs that people had specialized in hunting aurochs and wild sheep, and in gathering the wild grasses that were the prototypes of the later cultivated cereals, as far back as glacial times.

    Barbara Bender, on the other hand, has argued that it was predominantly social factors that lay behind the changes characteristic of the Neolithic period, such as the development of more complex, hierarchical societies with a wide-ranging network for the exchange of goods between different regions. Parallel to the rise of food production, status symbols and other artifacts came to play a crucial role in these societies. In various places throughout the world, a series of farming communities developed independently of each other, according to local conditions. In Southwest Asia, for example, wild prototypes of barley and wheat provided the basis for an emerging agricultural economy. Corresponding developments in North Africa were based on millet- in South and East Asia, on rice, and in central America, on corn. Similarly, different types of animals were domesticated in different parts of the world.


    The Crisis That Never Was


    The fact that the transition from hunting and gathering to farming took place at roughly the same time in many parts of the world indicates that similar factors lay behind the process. But one thing is certain: the late glacial and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers had a much more complex social system (one that had its roots in the Upper Paleolithic period), and engaged in much more specialized subsistence activities, than was previously assumed. It was in these Mesolithic hunting-gathering communities, with their relatively limited tribal territories, that the conditions for developing a system of food production were most favorable. Their knowledge of local food resources was very sophisticated. For example, there is evidence that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in western Europe cleared forests to facilitate the hunting of deer as early as about 6000 BC. At the same time, the dog was domesticated, and even different species of deer may have been kept as domestic animals.

    It is a common misconception that huntergatherers must live in straitened circumstances, on the brink of starvation and malnutrition. One should keep in mind that present-day hunter-gatherers are restricted to regions such as semi-deserts and arctic areas-the least hospitable regions on Earth. Modern studies of such societies have shown that the opposite is the case, and that they normally have a very stable supply of food, often with a large surplus. The !Kung Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert, in Botswana, whose technology is similar to that of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of Europe, provide a good example. In this dry desert area, they not only successfully manage their food supply, but can also afford to be very selective when gathering edible plants. It has been estimated that the !Kung collect and eat only about one-quarter of the plant species available, and that they spend only two or three hours a dav searching for food - less than 20 hours a week.

    It is clear that the changed climatic and environmental conditions at the end of the last glacial period were one of the main reasons for the rapid development of new economic systems all over the world. In most cases, this process was probably not voluntary. A combination of many different factors gradually forced people to actively produce food to meet the demands of growing populations. In particular, the Mesolithic huntergatherers who lived along the coasts of northwestern Europe can give us an insight into the reasons why people left their hunting, fishing, and gathering way of life, and became farmers.


    From Mesolithic to Neolithic

    About 6000 BC, the so-called Atlantic period began in western Europe. This was the warmest period after the last glacial, with average temperatures reaching several degrees above those of today. Dense deciduous forest covered the land. There was an abundance of big game, including boar, deer, and bears, as well as smaller animals. Lakes and rivers teemed with fish, and in coastal regions, fish, seals, mussels, and shellfish were plentiful. These were some of the richest resource areas on Earth. Having such a rich and varied supply of food, these people were less vulnerable to fluctuations in the availability of any one foodstuff.

    The territory within which these Mesolithic societies moved shrank in size once they no longer needed to cover great distances in pursuit of big game. It has been estimated that the population density during this period was about 1 to 20 individuals per square kilometer (less than half a square mile). Contrary to earlier beliefs, then, the shift to farming did not represent an improvement in people's living conditions. A few hours of gathering per day was replaced by perhaps 10 hours of toiling in hard soil. In addition, gathering food for domesticated animals demanded a great deal of work. As supplies of food became uncertain, people began, for the first time, to suffer from starvation and disease. Yet within 2,000 years, these Mesolithic peoples had become farmers.

    Paradoxically, it was mainly in resource-rich areas of the world that farming communities developed. Arctic regions were obviously unsuitable for farming and herding, as were desert areas and tropical rainforests. The only way to survive in these areas is to adapt to the existing environment. As a rule, this requires people to live in groups small enough to be sustainable, and to undertake long seasonal migrations.

    The abundant food supply enjoyed by European Mesolithic communities usually led them to adopt a completely settled way of life, a combination that always leads to population growth. By about 5000 BC, the first farming communities had been established all over central Europe, with the exception of coastal western Europe. In spite of close contacts between farmers inland and hunter-gatherers on the coast-as evidenced, for example, by the latter's adoption of pottery and polished stone axes-it was almost another thousand years before these coastal peoples started to cultivate their land and herd animals. Until then, they clearly had not needed to exert themselves in time-consuming farming activities. By about 4300 Bc, however, the Neolithic era was firmly entrenched, bringing to an end the agreeable life of the Mesolithic.

    The same scenario was repeated in many parts of the world. Lending support to the ecological explanation is the fact that some farming communities, for ecological reasons, actually reverted to a hunter-gatherer economy. For instance, the first farming community in eastern Sweden, the so-called Vra culture, was established shortly after 4000 BC. About 3000 Bc, a cooler and moister climate (known as the subboreal period) led to a marked increase in the supply of marine foods, especially seals, in the Baltic Sea. The early farming economy that had been established in this region disappeared, and its practitioners instead founded a rich hunting-gathering community, known as the Pitted-ware culture, after their distinctive pottery. This was based mainly on fishing and seal hunting, but some elements of the earlier farming economy were retained, notably domestic pigs.

    This very clear-cut Scandinavian example shows how rapidly people adapted to changing ecological conditions in order to secure their food supply. We are thus able to understand not on the complex and richly varied Neolithic process that took place throughout the world, but also the survival of those hunter-gatherer communities at managed to live in a state of ecological balance, not expanding beyond the land's capacity to support them in their traditional way of life-a situation that at the same time fostered social stability.

    The majority of the hunting-gathering peoples that have retained their original way of life are to be found in isolated marginal areas, where climatic conditions are extreme. What characterizes all these societies is that they have adapted to their particular environment in highly specialized and often sophisticated ways. Such peoples include the Bushmen of southern Africa and the Pygmies of the central African rainforests, as well as a number of peoples on the Indian subcontinent and in Southeast Asia, such as the Birhor, the Andamanese, and the Semang.

  10. #20
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts
    Great articles, some I already knew and I can agree especially with the first one, even widespread dietary books accepted most of this now. Some comments:

    There are races of people who are all slim, who are stronger and faster than us. They all have straight teeth and perfect eyesight. Arthritis, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, stroke, depression, schizophrenia and cancer are absolute rarities for them. These people are the last 84 tribes of hunter-gatherers in the world. They share a secret that is over 2 million years old. Their secret is their diet- a diet that has changed little from that of the first humans 2 million years ago, and their predecessors up to 7 million years ago. Theirs is the diet that man evolved on, the diet that is coded for in our genes. It has some major differences to the diet of "civilization". You are in for a few big surprises.
    Its not that easy though since many hunter-gatherers are poor, live in areas of retreat nowadays and have for sure not such a good nutrition, reduction and even full degeneration is the result like in Sanids, which degenerated to their current form in Kalahari, because their ancestors, the Boskopids, "strandloopers" were taller, more robust build. Similar things are true for Negritids (including the mentioned Semang, Andamanese) and Bambutids (African Pygmies).

    The majority of the hunting-gathering peoples that have retained their original way of life are to be found in isolated marginal areas, where climatic conditions are extreme. What characterizes all these societies is that they have adapted to their particular environment in highly specialized and often sophisticated ways. Such peoples include the Bushmen of southern Africa and the Pygmies of the central African rainforests, as well as a number of peoples on the Indian subcontinent and in Southeast Asia, such as the Birhor, the Andamanese, and the Semang.
    Thats because they were weaker, unable to adapt to the new socioeconomic regime in time and became pushed away into poor areas of retreat by the more agile and progressive groups.

    The difference is in the diet if comparing some well build ancestors with the average today as well, but not only and especially not in the sense of pure modification, because since then there were numerous genetic changes, f.e. the Lactose tolerance in many populations which relied more on animal husbandry than grains (f.e. Northern Europe, Eastern Africa, North India etc.).

    I should add that it isnt that surprising for the first waves of Neolithic settlers which were partly of quite primitive type and showed even Negriform features partly (mesognathy, vaulted forehead, short stature), like we know it from Natufids (often referred to as Protomediterranid) and Muge type in Europe.

    According to the physical remains, there was at the beginning a quite clear distinction between this settlers and hunter gatherers (which lived not really primitive) especially if going further North. On the long run we see cultural adaptations, mixture and a growing dominance of types already present in the Mesolithicum and from that derived new progressive forms, especially those of the Corded Ware People which were most likely more herders than farmers, influenced by the LBK, but racially Northern.
    So it would be very interesting to compare the results of Corded Ware People with that of LBK and modern Europeans. Its clear that the non-adapted and partly quite primitive Neolithic variants had no striking effect on the long run, this was noted even in the 50's. Its most likely that only certain features might have survived as "inspiration" in Europeans, but that this early Neolithic variants were largely selected out on the long run, partly quite fast, because we see that the post-LBK cultures often crushed the older settlements.

    Though contraselection and adaptation to sedentary farmer life might have reduced the Corded People genetic frequencies as well, I dont think to the same degree as that of early farmers. Thats an interesting question for the Indoeuropean dispute as well, since the Corded People were the primary, almost definitely Indoeuroean group in Europe in a crucial time and influential in many following, clearly Indoeuropean groups.

    In fact most hunter gatherers didnt wanted to become farmers, because farmers have often worse food, more work, more dirt, more plagues etc. The main advantage was that you can get more children, children are a workers too - which is productive, and that you can, at least most of the time, plan better than as H-G.

    Most likely many higher hunter cultures of Europe knew basic husbandry, they simply didnt used it. Shortly after the Ice Age, in the beginning warm period, there might have been still enough free ressources. But that changed over time and the time when Neolithics, with already more evolved husbandry, came (both autochthonous adapted and Near Eastern) it was the big change and the higher competition lead to the adoption of specialised farmers, combined economy and herders.

    I think racial types have certain tendencies, are better adapted to this or that, even in the cultural sphere, the main difference might appear rather if looking at the way they deal with certain conditons, ideas, technologies, change etc. if at all since especially from a certain level on culture has a strong dynamic on its own. The main differences seems to be the final potential and way of dealing with things. The border is obviously not farming nor simple state structures.

    Considering Europeans its important to stress the fact that the climatic, cultural and socioeconomic change changed the racial types partly as well - sometimes quite strong.

    Furthermore the farmers, especially when their population reached a certain level, suffered from all the things I already mentioned in other threads: They had to work more for the same production (because earth was worse, not enough available), less proteins guaranteed, based more on grains, plagues, hunger, unergonomic hard work which leads to various problems for the body and one sided tendencies, dependent structures - social and spacial immobility. So brachymorphisation, reduction and partial infantilisation might be the result - not versatile developments like in h-g, mobile farmers or herders with stronger group selection and better physical training and nutrition as its said in the text as well.

    From a thread on Dodona:
    Agriculture Is Bad for YouSo much for table manners: some dieticians recommend we change our eating habits to resemble those of our ancestors

    Modern agriculture is having a tough time, particularly in Europe. "Mad cow" disease, foot-and-mouth disease and fears over still-unspecified health effects from eating hormone-injected cattle or genetically engineered crops have all conspired to undermine the long accepted notion that "right off the farm" is synonymous with "good for you."

    But what if the whole enterprise of agriculture, which first emerged 10,000 to 12,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, turns out to be deleterious to human health? At first the idea seems absurd. After all, when inhabitants of what is now southeastern Turkey began cultivating naturally occurring einkorn wheat — one of several theories for where and how agriculture began — they were laying the foundation for what would become the first permanent human settlements, and thus for levels of social organization unknown in hunter-gatherer societies. But at the same time, say advocates of the "Paleolithic diet," agriculture launched humankind into essentially unnatural dietary habits, for which millions of years of evolution had not prepared us.

    We're not talking about that bloated feeling. According to Staffan Lindeberg, a Swedish physician and scholar of evolutionary nutrition, ailments ranging from heart disease and diabetes to atherosclerosis, osteoporosis and rickets "can probably to a large extent be prevented by diets resembling those of hunter-gatherers." In other words, we should eat more like our ancient ancestors: fruit, fish and lots of lean meat. Lindeberg contends that a typical European gets at least 70% of his or her calories from foods that were practically unavailable during human evolution: milk products, most oils, refined sugar, processed foods like margarine, and cereals. Those foods, he says, are low in minerals, vitamins and soluble fiber, but high in fat and salt. "Eating more protein would benefit many overweight Europeans," says Lindeberg.

    Proselytizers of the Paleolithic believe the modern European diet relies too heavily on grain-based foods, whether wholewheat bread and handmade pasta or pretzels and beer. Loren Cordain, a professor of exercise physiology at Colorado State University, thinks the widely accepted notion that carbohydrates are the foundation of a healthy diet leaves people short of nutrients and vitamins better provided through vegetables, fruit and meat. How much meat pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers consumed no doubt varied with its availability. Cordain contends that studies of extant hunter-gatherer societies show a mean caloric intake of two-thirds animal and one-third plant.

    Those who want to eat like the ancients can go onto the Web and download hundreds of "grain-free, bean-free, potato-free, dairy-free and sugar-free" recipes from PaleoFood.com. More adventurous eaters can experiment with recipes that aim to make locusts and mealworms palatable. Beyond that, California dietary guru Aajonus Vonderplanitz believes that the human body is best served by ingesting raw food — including raw meat. We took our wrong turn, it seems, with the taming of fire.

    No matter how rigorously individuals may embrace the idea of eating like a cave-dweller, it is clearly not a solution that can be applied on a broad scale. "It's not like there's a mammoth behind every lamppost these days," says Johanna Dwyer, professor of medicine and nutrition at Tufts University in Boston. Indeed, the relative scarcity of game may have been one of the factors that encouraged some hunter-gatherers to take up tilling and harvesting. If the cost of that adaptation shows up in health problems, its benefits are even more apparent. Through agriculture humankind has flourished, for better or worse, by the purest measure of evolutionary success: sheer numbers.

    http://www.time.com/time/europe/eu/m...107377,00.html



    Another paleo-scientist, Professor Arthur de Vany of California State University, puts it more pointedly: "It is easy to tell from the skeletons of our ancestors whether they were agriculturists or hunter-gatherers. The agriculturists have bad teeth, bone lesions, small and underdeveloped skeletons, and small craniums, compared to hunter-gatherers."

    http://www.mercola.com/2001/mar/7/diet_evolution.htm


    http://www.panix.com/~paleodiet/

    http://chetday.com/cordaininterview.htm
    Some interesting articles.

    Indeed, the relative scarcity of game may have been one of the factors that encouraged some hunter-gatherers to take up tilling and harvesting.
    Absolutely. In the Fertile Crescent area food was so easy to find that they settled probably before becaming farmers - when the conditions changed they had to adapt to keep their new life form with more children and sedentary or at least semi-nomadic life - they invested work to get more food out of their and soon after that other lands - "Neolithic Revolution".

    Another paleo-scientist, Professor Arthur de Vany of California State University, puts it more pointedly: "It is easy to tell from the skeletons of our ancestors whether they were agriculturists or hunter-gatherers. The agriculturists have bad teeth, bone lesions, small and underdeveloped skeletons, and small craniums, compared to hunter-gatherers."
    Thats depends on the exact status of H-G, herders or farmers, its generally true for most of Europe, but still a generalisation. But especially late farmer existence before the last advances in the 19th-20th century was contraselective. Not as much as the current liberalcapitalistic system, but still. The modification we see (shorter stature, shorter-rounder skull, weaker bones, infantilisation etc.), which was reversible, pointed in the same direction as the selection which happened, especially in the poorer areas, as well.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Late Glacial Hunter-Gatherer Colonization of Southern Scandinavia
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, April 13th, 2006, 12:00 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, May 22nd, 2005, 06:57 PM
  3. Impulsive Behavior may be Relict of Hunter-Gatherer Past
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Psychology, Behavior, & Neuroscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 06:45 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sunday, June 13th, 2004, 04:58 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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