Response to Lyle McDonald’s comments on grain consumption 100,000 years ago.
Perhaps Lyle Mcdonald should embrace the paleo diet as a real food/whole food diet instead worrying about it being trendy or trying to bag on it. Is it not a healthy balanced diet?
I like much of Lyle’s already written content, but the quality of the new stuff is slipping!
Slightly off topic from the content below, but the Paleo diet is a blanket term. It can range from largely vegetarian to carnivorous. It’s an excellent diet, and should be tailored to whatever makes you feel best! I feel best on a largely carnivorous diet containing 50-80% fat and no more than about 20% carbs. These carbs come almost entirely from vegetables. Any more carbs than that and I bloat up. This is me. You may be different. It’s all about experimentation.
My comments below are in italicized red.
From Lyle McDonald’s site:
In recent years, there has been quite an explosion in interest in the supposed diet of our paleolithic ancestors, essentially in an attempt to explain part of why humans are having so much trouble with the modern diet. So far as I can tell the first paper was written in the Mid-80’s or so but even more recently it’s become quite the fad/cult/area of interest for a lot of people.
Because it’s a diet based on whole foods & makes people feel good.
Now, while an entire article could be written about this, it’s important to note that nobody knows for sure what we ate during our evolution. Even researchers in the field (Cordain and Eaton are two of the major ones) have arrived at rather drastically different conclusions about what our diets contained based on their assumptions because it’s all basically a lot of guesswork. We end up with estimations based on a bunch of assumptions and not much more.
And we never will know until we invent a time machine. It’s a no brainier to assume that they consumed whatever food they had access to that wouldn’t kill them, so there is no one “paleo diet”, just a list of guidelines for whole foods to consume.
Much of it comes from an analysis of a book called the Ethnographic Atlas, a work done years ago by non-scientists who wrote down (sort-of) what extant non-modernized people were eating. From that, various researchers, making various assumptions about the relative proportions of animal and vegetable foods in the diet have thrown out some ideas about what our evolutionary diet contained. Those researchers have often reached utterly differing ideas based on which built-in assumptions they started with. Other suggestions about our ancestral diet have been made by examining the current intake of extant hunter-gatherer tribes with the implicit assumption that their food intake is representative of our intake during our evolution.
All you have to do is go try to live on your own in a particular area for a while. You WILL CONSUME what will keep you alive! In my geo location (and likey the one I evolved from as a white guy) that food would be animal protein, except in the late spring and summer months where these is plenty of access to berries, greens (that need to be boiled), and some roots (also needing boiling).
I’d note that it’s unlikely that there was any singular evolutionary diet in the first place.
1,000% on board here and 100% sure there isn’t.
Humans have shown the ability to adjust to all but the most extreme environments and show an amazing ability to adapt to drastically differing diets as well.
And here… but this doesn’t mean they thrive. Kids now a days survive on diets composed of mainly HFCS & soybean oil. They also have ADHD & diabetes.
Human ancestors evolving in say Alaska would have had far different foods available than someone living in the arid plains in Africa. Even examining the extant hunter-gatherer tribes demonstrates this in spades: the diet of an Alaskan Inuit is radically different from say an African Bushman simply due to the difference in environment and what is available to them. So there is no single ancestral diet in terms of the quantities, proportions or types of food that would have been eaten in the first place.
Who say’s there is? What’s your point? As far as gains are concerned, the African bushman probably did eat some grains/seeds, but do you think he spent the majority of his time out gathering this crap when he had a ridiculous abundance of animals to choose from? Yes, most certainly his macro ratios were different in his sunny climate than the cold hostile climate of the peoples living in the area of the Inuit.
At best we can probably say with some degree of certainty that our ancestors didn’t have many of the foods available to us today. That is, Cap’n Crunch, Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream and Bud Light weren’t part of our evolutionary diet because they didn’t exist (much to the loss of our ancestors). Beyond that, we can’t say with much certainty what they did eat; it’s mostly guessing because folks weren’t alive to say for sure. And while it may be safe to assume that extant hunter-gatherer tribes are representative, it’s still an assumption.
We don’t eat anything that they ate. All of our shit is selectively bred or shipped in from somewhere. We do know that they ate plants and animals. The rest depends on the region where they lived..
Now, while there are many different interpretations to the ‘paleo-diet’ craze, at least one thing that most seem to agree on was that refined grains were absolutely not part of the evolutionary diet.
In most areas of the world are you going to find an abundance of grains growing wild without farming? It’s pretty safe to say many of the hunter gatherers did not have much access to grains. They are also seasonal with a relatively short window for harvesting.
Bloggers, apparently unclear on the concept of irony, go on constantly about how ‘Paleo man didn’t have grains, so you shouldn’t eat them.’ Apparently that same logic doesn’t apply to the computers they use to blog with, the Internet that they blog on, their Blackberries that they use to Twitter about their blog updates, modern cars that they use to get to work or the houses they live in. Paleo man didn’t have those either but I don’t see these folks giving those up. Guess they only want to give up the easy stuff when it’s convenient. But I digress.
Paleo man didn’t have a 9-5 job taking up all his time or taxes to pay either. That was the stupidest paragraph I’ll read all week. Being a fan of a lot of your work, I would expect more from you.
That is, it’s generally assumed that refined grains (being currently blamed for much of modern health problems) weren’t a major part of our diet until the agricultural revolution, about 10,000 years ago. It’s also assumed that that span of time is insufficient for man to have evolved to deal with them. I’ll only address this second assumption by pointing readers to a new book called The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution wherein the authors make a rather good argument that, contrary to common belief, not only did human evolution continue once humans became civilized, that it accelerated.
Of course they accelerated. Give any animal access to more cheap easy calories and what do they do? Breed! Does that mean they’re healthy and thriving as individual beings?
Rather, in looking at today’s second paper, I want to address that first assumption: that our evolutionary diet was devoid of any type of refined cereal grain. I imagine that, if you’ve read this far, you can guess what I’m going to say about it and what the second study concluded.
Just like the way you bag on saturated fat, just because grains may have been available in some cases, does it mean we should be eating them? Come on Lyle.
The researchers were examining cave artifacts in a cave site in Mozambique which have been dated to somewhere between 42000 and 105,000 years ago. They mention that excavation in 2007 retrieved 555 artifacts. Of those, 70 stone tools were analyzed and were chosen to represent the broadest range of potential plant uses. This includes scrapers, grinders, points, flakes and miscellaneous tools. These were analyzed and while 20% contained no starch residue, the other 80% were found to contain starch granules with the number on each tool ranging from 1 to 650. It’s worth noting that the quantity of granules found on the scrapers was massively larger than what is found naturally in the cave, that is, they were brought into the cave.
The majority of starch granules (89%) were identified as sorghum, a grass showing a large complex of cultivated, wild and weedy types. The researchers note that the starch granules found on the tools analyzed are structurally identical to modern sorghum plants. As the researchers state:
The Mozambican data show that Middle Stone Age groups routinely brought starchy plants to their cave sites and that starch granules go attached to and preserved on stone tools. I cannot prove that starch from all stone tools represents direct tool function…These early grinders are simply modified cobbles and core tools, with a suspected use that conforms to the technological action of “diffuse resting percussion” and “pounding”, which allows the grinding of plant materials.
This assumes they were eating them. YOU are assuming that they were eating them. Perhaps they were making paint? Maybe glue for baskets? Oils? Who the hell knows! We never will! Look at the piles of non-food items modern man makes out of corn. Plants have many uses.
Say they did eat them… in what quantity? I’d say probably more like a condiment than a dietary staple.
Put differently, while more research will certainly be needed to verify or refute this claim, data that is a bit more direct than “Assumptions based on a book some guys wrote years and years ago” suggest that as far back as 100,000 years ago, humans had found a way to refine and consume at least some grains for their diet.
Of course they did. They were very in tune with their environment. About all it takes is one guy to eat a seed and not die. “Mmm, food.”
The high school dropout tweakers down the road from me figured out how to make meth in the trunk of their car out on a logging road. Let’s advocate people add meth to their diet. It’s probably ok in moderation or small quantities right? It gives you wicked energy and you lose weight too! People in the 1960s and 70s consumed “Crank” and they’re still doing fine.
Or as the researchers state more directly in the abstract above:
A large assembly of starch granules has been retrieved from the surfaces of Middle Stone Age tools from Mozambique, showing that early Homo Sapiens relied on grass seeds starting at least 105,000 years ago, including those of sorghum grasses.
But once again… relied on them for what?
And even if you don’t buy the argument of the book I referenced above, that 10,000 years is more than sufficient to allow adaptation to changes in diet, it would be hard to argue that 105,000 years isn’t time enough to adapt to some degree.
It might be easy to argue if they weren’t consuming much (if any) of the grains they were processing.
Do you really feel grains are that beneficial to man’s diet?
What’s DR. Cordain Have to say?
“the data from Ngalue is less convincing for the use of cereal grains as seasonal food. No associated intact grass seeds have been discovered in the cave at Ngalue, nor were anvil stones with repetitive grinding marks found. Hence, at best, the data suggests sporadic use (and not necessarily consumption) of grains at this early date. Clearly, large scale processing of sorghum for consumption for extended periods seems unlikely.
Further, It should be pointed out that consumption of wild grass seeds of any kind requires extensive technology and processing to yield a digestible and edible food that likely did not exist 105,000 years ago. Harvesting of wild grass seeds without some kind of technology (e.g. sickles and scythes [not present at this time]) is tedious and difficult at best. Additionally, containers of some sort (baskets [not present at this time], pottery [not present] or animal skin containers are needed to collect the tiny grains. Many grain species require flailing to separate the seed from the chaff and then further winnowing ([baskets not present]), or animal skins] to separate the seeds from the chaff. Intact grains are not digestible by humans unless they are first ground into a flour (which breaks down the cell walls), and then cooked (typically in water – e.g. boiling [technology not present]) or parched in a fire which gelatinizes the starch granules, and thereby makes them available for digestion and absorption. Because each and every one of these processing steps requires additional energy on the part of the gatherer, most contemporary hunter gatherers did not exploit grains except as starvation foods because they yielded such little energy relative to the energy obtained (optimal foraging theory).
If indeed the grinder/core axes with telltale starch granules were used to make flour from sorghum seeds, then the flour still had to be cooked to gelatinize the starch granules to make it digestible. In Neolithic peoples, grass seed flour most typically is mixed with water to make a paste (dough) that is then cooked into flat breads. It is highly unlikely that the technology or the behavioral sophistication existed 105,000 years ago to make flat breads. Whole grains can be parched intact in fires, but this process is less effective than making flour into a paste and cooking it to gelatinize the starch granules. Hence, it is difficult to reconcile the chain of events proposed by the authors (appearance of sorghum starch granules on cobbles or grinders = pounding or grinding of sorghum grains = consumption of sorghum). I wouldn’t hang my hat on this evidence indicating grains were necessarily consumed by hominins at this early date. To my mind, the Ohalo II data still represents the best earliest evidence for grain consumption by hominins.”
The Paleo Diet is not just about body composition… it’s about health! Body recomposition is just an awesome benefit. If I wanted to get ripped, feel like shit, and have who knows what health problems… I’d eat whatever I want and power down Dinitrophenol. Hell, you only live once right?
Richard over at Free The Animal has a good followup to the 100,000 grain consumption articles also.
Grok,
Excellent Post. Lyle certainly comes across as a smart guy, who both knows he’s smart and thinks no one else can be. He offers very thoughtful, extremely opinionated discussions about diet and nutrition. I enjoy his writings, but take them with a pinch (not a grain!) of salt
.
Cheers,
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
@Bryce I agree. He is a good researcher, but it seems his ego is getting bigger or something?
I use to take his work with a Tbsp of salt, but I was getting a little more bloat than I like. I’ve dialed back to about a pinch now myself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
re: fad/cult/area of interest
As knee-jerk a reaction a statement like this is, there is some truth to it. Calling it a fad is a typical dismissive tactic though. How can you call something a fad if you don’t know how long the interest is going to last? This also shows the typical small single human centered concept of time. On an evolutionary scale, in which human evolution is still a blip on the scale of the age of the universe, the fad is agriculture and industrialized products, lowfat-highgrain dogma being the most recent, shortest and most prevelant now.
re: I’d note that it’s unlikely that there was any singular evolutionary diet in the first place.
This line made me think of an article I read recently http://boingboing.net/2009/12/16/how-shellfish-saved.html that is speaking about the theory that our population, about 1xx,xxx years ago was reduced to 1000 breeding pairs, that is, 2000 to 20000 individuals. That’s a hell of a genetic bottleneck! So perhaps there is actually something to the idea of specific evolutionary diet.
re: show an amazing ability to adapt to drastically differing diets as well
Sure. Adapt doesn’t mean evolve the ability to thrive. Hence, gluten intolerance, lactose intolerance, legume allergies, etc. Also, when we went from hunter-gather to agriculture we took a huge hit. Sure, people were able to have enough food to make it to breeding age, and long enough to raise the children to the age they could survive, but when you look at the remains of the humans during that transition, our height took a hit, our bones and teeth took a hit.
re: Human ancestors evolving in say Alaska would have had far different foods available than someone living in the arid plains in Africa.
It’s funny that he mentions Alaska versus Africa. I already mentioned the possible genetic bottleneck around 200kya, but the fact that he chose Alaska is just truly ignorant. We evolved initially in Africa and stayed their, while we only hit Alaska and the rest of the Americas a few thousand years before major agriculture developed. Even THAT is a 10x factor in time!
re: we can’t say with much certainty what they did eat
The ignorance! Even without pure scientific certainty, take an educated guess! What did they have available to eat for hundreds of thousands of years, up into maybe 2 million? Meat, vegetable plants, maybe a few nuts and berries. A recent article (I can’t find now) was talking about a gene we evolved/adapted that makes eating meat easier, and we developed this gene eons ago. A factor of 100x longer than adapting to eating grains/lactose/legumes, etc.
re: apparently that same logic doesn’t apply to the computers they use to blog with, the Internet that they blog on
I won’t be nice here. This is just plain outright stupid. How can you compare a biologically evolved diet with using a cellphone? This isn’t about technology we use that has nothing to do with our diet! You wanna talk about technology like sharpened rocks, spears and atlatls, let’s go for it! This is the least logical and rational parts I’ve read.
I’m not going to address the “grasses” section much. As Cordain points out, we simply didn’t have the technology to grow, harvest and utilize grasses to any sufficient caloric amount. As you mentioned, we are so used to the availability of food, we simply can’t comprehend what it’s like to be completely starving. Hence cannibalism. Hence, if you can eat it and don’t die, you’ll eat it.
Bah… I don’t even know why I’m dignifying this with a response. Those of us that are following a paleo/primal lifestyle have seen the positive changes in our bodys and minds.
Great comment arlojeremy! Thanks for taking the time. Nice addition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is an example of mainstream media taking weak, preliminary data and turning it into a newsworthy story — from which many authoritative voices (such as that of Mr. Lyle, whom I’ve respected for well over a decade) have reason to utter.
Whether early hominids ate grains or not, it’s not likely to be a staple from which genetic adaptations occur. Occasional consumption of grass seeds (if even that were the case) was not an element too different from occasional consumption of tree bark, poison mushrooms, or rotten vegetables. Or dirt.
In any case, a Paleo diet is not about what our early ancestors ate as much as what they didn’t eat — and reasonable guessing is that grass seeds were difficult, if not impossible, to consume without elaborate equipment, at least not at large-scale quantity. But even if they were consumed, it does not mean they were health-producing.
The Paleo diet is not so much about duplicating EXACTLY what our ancestors did, but about adopting the healthiest practices by which our early ancestors might have thrived — which happened to be most likely those things of simplicity, natural, basic, and wholesome.
But forget about early hominids and the theories about what they did or did not. Isn’t there enough evidence in the field of bioenergetics and physiology to indicate that most of the grain-based carbohydrates are not only unnecessary but — with their high levels of anti-nutrients, calorie density, and nutrient-sparsity — devoid of health-promotion, and are downright unhealthy?
Do must of us not have better choices like more vegetables, fresh fruits, healthy fats, and quality meats? This alone should qualify the Paleo Diet as a legitimate, sustainable diet to repair the obesity epidemic and health crisis for the majority… no matter how many other diets have been shown to work for the few.
Good post, Castle.
Thanks Johnny. Great comment! The last paragraph especially is gold. Most of us have joined this “cult” because we’ve see the health benefits first hand. Paleo eating almost literally saved my life. Hard not to be passionate about that!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Now I’m pretty new to Primal/Paleo style eating, and even I can see the huge holes in his argument.
Being cynical, I have to say;
Is there a ‘food’ manufacturer out there getting worried about selling their refined crap, so they are rolling out an expert on their side?
I love to forage, something I’ve done for years, and yes there is a seasonal cycle. It changes on your region.
Yes, I believe that early man have eaten wild rice/grains in moderation as a winter supplement. Eat it or starve when there are no available fruit or veg because of snow. Maybe they even sprouted it. Who knows.
I did note that the Indians who harvest real wild rice (not the modern cross breed sold as wild rice in the shops) describe it as a subsistance crop. They harvest by hitting the rice plant with a stick, letting it drop into the canoe, and then drying later. So quite do-able.
Just because it is edible does not mean it is good for you.
Grok On!
Welcome Judy!
I’ve seen images of primitive peoples doing similar things with grains. Sifting and flipping them into wind with big baskets to float out debris. Many of those practicing these techniques are farmers though. Paleo people could have done the same, but the abundance of grains was not likely there. Not like walking into a heavily planted field like here in the USA. If it was worth their time, I’m sure it would be easier to find evidence backing it.
Good luck with your primal triathlon training. I’ll be a fully primal triathlete myself
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nice post and great comment Johnny.
I actually didn’t have a huge problem with what you quote Lyle with above – except the cell phone thing which is trivial and silly ( I assume that was in jest b/c Lyle is smarter than that). It’s a discussion – nothing wrong with alternate view points and lines of thought. I’d prefer to have all of the arguments out there so I am making the best decisions based on all the possibilities not one view.
Of the two viewpoints presented, though, Cordain’s is far more convincing.
“I actually didn’t have a huge problem” – Me either. You can always learn (if you’re listening
) from discussion. It felt like it’s been snowballing a little lately, so I felt the need to put up something.
Professor Cordain is a pretty damn smart guy. No doubt he does his homework.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t know what Grok ate for sure. And I am a bit sympathetic to Lyle’s idea that a ridiculous amount of physical activity may help one avoid the typical Western problems with a diet high in grains.
But while speculating about what happened eons ago is interesting, for me, there’s the real question about anti-nutrients in grains today, especially given industrial food.
Considering the list (e.g., HFCS, lectins, saponins, glutens, phytates, high omega 6, etc.) and other issues (GMO), I know I’m skeptical about Doritos — and other grains — whether one is a couch potato or a triathlete.
“ridiculous amount of physical activity may help one avoid the typical Western problems with a diet high in grains.”
I’m on board half way with that. No doubt exercise works, but gains are inflammatory & so is exercise. Should we really have to exercise that much to counter our diet? Myself like Mark Sisson was a grain eater while training. The inflammation took us both out. I’m young enough to try and get back in
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m with Bryce. This guy is too smart for his own good. And for anyone else’s. What you might call “third eye blind.”
He is a smart guy. I think arrogance or something is getting the best of him here.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
None of the arguments put forth really matter, do they? We call this diet the “Paleo” or “Caveman” diet, but its just a trendy fun name. The VALUE is in the diet itself.
Even if its found that cavemen tended to subsist on a diet of doughnut holes and pizza rolls, that doesn’t change the facts of the Primal/Paleo diet. Persistently elevated levels of insulin from excessive carbohydrate intake is bad. Lyle hasn’t so much attacked the Primal diet as he has its followers, which is a pretty low-brow move in my opinion.
The other cheap shot was in reference to “Cavemen Bloggers” taking advantage of modern day technology. We aren’t trying to bring down modern civilization and recreate the caveman’s actual conditions, we are trying to recreate his hormonal conditions.
Well some of us are. JK – Haha
Well said Jerry! Bottom line… paleo works.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“Perhaps Lyle Mcdonald should embrace the paleo diet as a real food/whole food diet instead worrying about it being trendy or trying to bag on it. Is it not a healthy balanced diet?”
Alright, not trying to speak for Lyle personally, but I hang around on his forums a lot and his opinion/ideas are shared with most everyone there (who is active at least).
I don’t think Lyle would disagree that the Paleo way of eating is FAR healthier than the modern western diet. We eat a lot of shit, no doubt. Just come to my house and you see bags of cereal, packaged food etc.
The sad thing is, most people are ignorant to the fact that these enriched foods are not healthier for them. Billions of dollars are spent to keep it that way. Just watch a few ads on CNN at night. I agree, that in a small fairly specialized BB forum like Lyle’s, most of those people know. Whether they care… probably not. Healthy food is not required for good body composition.
Basically, I believe Lyle is tired of the Paleo Cultists who tell someone they are a f*cking idiot for eating potatoes, bread and rice, when this person has clearly eaten it their entire life without any ill effect.
This is the difference between newbies & vets.
Sure, some people may have some food intolerance to milk, wheat, dairy, gluten, etc. BUT it’s not the entire population. I can only name about 5 people I’ve met in my entire life who’ve ever had any of these issues.
That they know of – I never “had intolerance” to these either… until they were eliminated. Of course I do dairy now, but still have issues with pasteurized stuff. I know this only from testing.
I’m a firm believer that the Paleo style diet is much healthier and rich in micro nutrients than my boxes of cereal and ramen noodles BUT this doesn’t make me go and preach to people the message of eat ‘clean or die’. I simply take what is useful and disregard what is not.
When it’s helped someone sooo much, they tend to get very passionate and want to spread the word. Many people are already oversensitive about diet. Often by informing them, they feel you are ridiculing them. My family is a prime example! I don’t tell them what to eat, I just tell them what they are eating. Generally they know it’s not good for them, but want to remain in denial because they don’t see it as a problem. The weird thing is… I can see it’s causing them problems, and it’s not even my body. They just don’t know!
Some of my family worries about me eating paleo. “You look gaunt.” I get overly sensitive & baffled at the same time. I just want to say, “Look at my plate… now look at yours you fat wheat face.” Of course they’re saying this to me only because they care. If they only knew… if they could hop in my body for 3 minutes… they’d be a convert overnight.
I know Lyle is not bagging on anyone personally, it’s simply that you pass a certain point once you’ve been thoroughly annoyed with lame trolls, who’ve done nothing but read a magazine or a few web pages, and then come to the forums to start bashing others and telling them how to eat Paleo when they know nothing of wtf they are talking about!
Damn noobs ruin everything
I may be wrong, but I think Lyle is on board with grains a little more than you know.
Merry Christmas CastleGrok!!!
Merry Christmas to you too buddy! Thanks for keeping us honest
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Grok,
GREAT post!!
Ultimately the proof is in the paleo pudding isn’t it? How you feel is key but what about the “actual medical proof”
Let’s compare Lyle’s triglycerides at age 55 to Richards. Let’s see who’s on statins or who knows what other meds when they reach that age.
I’m 42 and sadly most (over 85%) my college buds are on meds and overweight. That can’t be just lucky. Or have the last 4 years off paleo/primal/EF eating reversed some of the damage caused by a lifetime of eating conventionally?
Who knows right? But like you….I know how I feel and can see how I look
Happy holidays and best wishes for a amazing 2010.
Marc
I’m convinced
Happy Holidays & amazing 2010 to you too Marc!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yea, and I think a key point you mentioned is that they’re overweight. When someone is overweight, it can highly skew blood lipid levels etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Looks like Lyle McDonald refuted you paleo guy’s wrong assumptions about grains.
Where? Nobody has proven anything on either side. Just assumptions. Try reading above troll.
It doesn’t change the fact that gains are shitty for your health. Eat them if you want dude, we’re not your Dad and it’s a free country, but saying grains are healthy is about the equivalent of saying beer is healthy. Why even argue it?
Wait… beer is made of grains
maybe I should have said Tequila?
Wait… that’s nicknamed ‘TeKillYa’?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Comment by Lyle McDonald on his forum:
“And probably less prolific because it’s a shit-ton harder to get sufficient calories when you don’t have agriculture of some sort
which is something that folks forget, it’s not that one or the other was good or bad, they simply had pros and cons
sapolsky talked about this in an excellent essay wrt; his baboons who got access to the throwaways from a lodge
pros: earlier reproduction, easier life in terms of obtaining food, more babies
cons: health problems similar to modern man
but nobody seems able to look at it in that context. the development of agriculture is arguably what allowed man to evolve past the Hunter gatherer stage stage. And let humans overpopulate the planet.
Without the ability to get food easily and make lots of kids, we wouldn’t have time to develop anything else.
Which is why all pre-agricultural groups are still basically stuck in teh fucking stone age. Would you give up modern life and everything that came out of it in exchagne for agriculture.
Because I bet they’d love them some Hazda internet porn. Or 1/10th of the shit that we take for granted. None of which would exist had not society domesticated grains like hell and developed civilization.
But cons came along with that development as well.”
He has a point here I would not disagree with. However, we now have evolved systems which clearly provide us with the cheap easy calories needed to keep us busy inventing rather than hunting and further developing technology to move us forward (or backward) as a species.
Why keep eating the shit and accepting the cons when we don’t have to? What are we even arguing about again?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Now, while an entire article could be written about this, it’s important to note that nobody knows for sure what we ate during our evolution. Even researchers in the field (Cordain and Eaton are two of the major ones) have arrived at rather drastically different conclusions about what our diets contained based on their assumptions because it’s all basically a lot of guesswork. We end up with estimations based on a bunch of assumptions and not much more.” Lyle McDonald.
Here I think he doth protest too much! While it is true that no-one can say, for certain, what our palaeolithic ancestors actually ate on a day-to-day basis in every corner of the globe they occupied, it is also a gross untruth to say that “it’s all basically a lot of guesswork”.
We have sufficient evidence/data from the hominin fossil record to make ‘well-educated guesses’ and ‘informed assumptions’ as to what the predominant dietary characteristics were – and plants a-plenty do not figure greatly! By measuring the levels of various radioactive isotopes in the bones of animals and humans it has been possible for palaeontologists to ascertain that we mainly ate meat.
You can also argue that Lyle and his ilk are using the same methodology to draw their conclusions (or denigrate the conclusions of pro-meat-eating palaeontologists) – by looking at current dietary practices and available foods and assuming man must have eaten these in the palaeolithic.
Fruits, for instance, are only sweet, plump and juicy because we have ‘bred’ them that way over the last two thousand years or so. Most uncultivated wild fruits still in existence are small, tough and bitter (and often toxic – various nightshade berries, for example).
We have many different varieties of apples but you cannot grow them from seed – they come up like their wild progenitors (‘crab apples’). Modern edible apples can only be cultivated by budding/grafting – something that does not occur, unaided, in nature.
So rather than tucking in to punnets of the stuff, I would venture that wild fruit – during the palaeolithic – was a sustenance fall-back or even a rudimentary medicine rather than a dietary staple to be relished! And that probably goes double for grains!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah grains are so bad and unhealthful……..
That’s why Sardinians , who have the most male centenarians in the world eat whole grain bread , the Costa Ricans ( corn and beans) and the Okinawans ( rice and noodles sweet potatoes )ALL eat GRAINS and STARCHES.
Yeah grains are really bad, so bad you just might live to 100 or beyond. Have you ever checked the nutritional profile of wheat germ you fool? LOADED with nutrients.
That;s why NUMEROUS National Geographic hunter gatherer shows show them making sugary HONEYWINE and BREAD with their howler monkeys.
It is VERY likely grains and starches palyed a moderate role at least in Paleoman’s diet.
Lastly we are NOT the saem as Paleoman you fool. We are not even the same as people from 11,000 years ago.
Look up world renowned anthropologist Henry Harpending. He alread has said this.
Sometimes these paleo bloggers forget they have no credentials. Anthrolopoly is a REAL area of study. Dr Harpending is far more an expert than you or anyone else of these ” internet paleo bloggers” is. Lyle McDonald also has CREDENTIALS.
Only on the internet can someone criticize real experts with credentials and peer reviewed published studies.
Get real.
I have to ask… where do you get that crack you smoke? That’s some good stuff!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Bucklesnarf, this is a polite discussion. Keep it classy please.
Correlation does not imply causation and I doubt you can point me to a study that proves a cause and effect relationship between grain consumption and longevity.
I don’t know what shows you’re referring to or what hunter-gatherer tribes…I don’t know the makeup of these sugary drinks or what percentage of their total caloric intakes they make up. I can’t possibly comment on this given the lack of info.
I took your advice and read up on the Henry Harpending study. Very interesting! I think this particular snippet would be of interest:
“For example, Europeans can easily digest cereal grains, but Kalahari Bushmen (or San) in Africa, Australian Aborigines, and Native Americans often become diabetic when eating a high-carbohydrate diet.
‘We can see the genes changing. We are evolving to cope with these new cereals,’ Harpending said.
Eventually, this rapid pace of genetic evolution should slow, assuming the human environment and diet stabilize, Harpending said.
‘It’s going to take a while to stabilize,” he said. “By ‘a while,’ I’m talking tens of thousands of years.”
So evidence shows that certain groups have evolved to be capable of digesting cereal grains. It doesn’t show whether or not this is optimum, and it doesn’t tell me whats best for me. We’re not ALL European.
The truth is, eating grains (hopefully whole grains) isn’t going to necessarily lead directly to Type II Diabetes and illness for everyone. However those of us who follow the Primal diet feel evidence is sufficient for us to forgo grains. If you don’t have a problem with it and don’t want to forgo grains, feel free to do so. We can’t ALL go Primal, otherwise we couldn’t sustain this population.
Now that’s a comment!
I’ll make an assumption. Those sugary drinks were fermented, and a good chance the breads were too. Those of us on primal diets know how crappy we feel after we eat grains, Barfknuckles doesn’t. Can you imagine how terrible you’d feel after some grain consumption if you were a paleo man? You’d have a hangover and torn up guts. I doubt you’d be excited about consuming them very often. If the grains had some sort of fermentation (like ancient people have been shown to do) it may help with the tolerance leading to evolutionary adaptation we have today.
“It doesn’t show whether or not this is optimum, and it doesn’t tell me whats best for me.”
This line should close the case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Another note: The Primal/Paleo Diet is NOT a Anarcho-Primitive movement. We’re seeking better health/longevity/wellness through diet and exercise, NOT the downfall of modern civilization and a return to pre-agricultural tribal hunter-gatherer society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Good old stalwart, the Okinawans, are wheeled out again! It is often used as a granivore/vegetarian trump card as if meat and animal fats would never dare touch their lips, ruin their health and decrease their lifespan!
“Okinawa – The Island of Pork:
Pork appears so frequently in the Okinawan diet that to say “meat” is really to say “pork.” Everything from head to tail is used. As the saying has it, only the “oink” and the toenails go begging. It is no exaggeration to say that the present-day Okinawan diet begins and ends with pork.”
From http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/026/e/pork.html
Which is a web site of the Okinawa Prefectural Government. They ought to know what their people’s diet actually is!
Just like the French. It must be the wine they drink making them healthy! Couldn’t be something a simple as the fact that they don’t overeat, frown on taking seconds, or maybe the increased fats & fat soluble vitamins in their diet?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alex
No one is more aginst the anti saturated fat theory than me.
I was merely pointing out these cultures eat grains and starches without any negative health.
Anyone who saw Anthony Bourdain’s show on Sardinia knows they certainly do not eat low fat. Buettner is a fraud.
I’ve love to see the average Sardinian dish in Sardinia. This would tell the story.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Fair enough. The question then is – Exactly how much do grains contribute to the overall diet? In what form are they eaten? How are they prepared and cooked? And, most importantly, how much does the high saturated fat intake mediate against any of the harmful effects of grains? Are they healthy/long-lived precisely because of their grain consumption or in spite of it due to these other mitigating dietary factors? If the latter, then it is hardly a prescription for the consumption or healthfulness of grains.
There is nothing in grains that cannot be obtained from other foods and a lot of stuff we would be better off without: gluten, gliadin, wheat germ agglutinin, phytates, protease inhibitors and so on.
I wonder what roll probiotics play in keeping grains from damaging their guts? This alone could easily be the key to long disease free lives. Add reduce calorie eating, High Omega 3 levels (reducing inflammation), less environmental toxins… mystery eliminated. But it’s the gains that keep them healthy! Right….
It would be interested to see how much of their food is traditionally fermented. They may not ferment now, but we wouldn’t see many ill affects of them stopping for a few generations or many, since modern medicine could no doubt pic up the longevity slack from less optimal diet.
I know Sardinians like to ferment have you ever seen the Sardinian maggot cheese “Casu marzu“
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Even the Sardinians are not so grain-centric as we are often led to believe: http://www.go-sardinia.com/sardinia-food.htm
Plenty of fatty, spit-roasted meats there. Even the pasta is served with a sausage-based sauce and desserts of pastry are filled with cheese!
When we are told this population’s staple foods or that population’s staple foods are grains the implication is that it makes up the bulk of their diet. This is clearly not true – even from the last couple of examples.
A staple crop, like wheat, may be a country’s main determinant of their gross domestic product or income via export etc. but does not necessarily equate to the only thing they themselves eat or the main contribution to local diet or even an individual dish!
Great link Alex. I was looking at some Sardinian dishes earlier and noticed the relatively low gain content as well. High O3 and some fermented foods could easily take away most of the negatives of the grain consumption. It would be fun to be a birdy-in-the-window of the standard Sardinian family
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Look no further. Sardinians certainly have a fat rich diet , but pastas and vreads play a large role too.
This series has many parts. This is what they eat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbfaE2UPVOw
Just as a side note, the nutritional profile of wheat germ is tremendous.
Grains are good, very good and very useful. They just do not need to dominate a diet. Remember we are not the same as paleoman anymore. We are not even like people from 11,ooo years ago. Most of us have evolved to hangle grains. It certainly has been enough time, and Dr. Henry Harpending ( very educated and respected world renowned anthrolpologist) agrees we are different.
“Grains are good, very good and very useful” – Grains make excellent glue.
I haven’t had time to watch the whole series yet (only into 2nd video), but I couldn’t help but notice:
a.) everything was fresh
b.) small potions
c.) mostly meat
Pretty hard to overindulge and suffer the affects of grain consumption when you’re hand making your raviolis and noodles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So the question remains, then, are they healthy and long-lived because of their bread/pasta intake or in spite of it? The addition of cereals to their diet certainly doesn’t seem to guarantee that they remain lean, there were quite a few, shall we say, ‘portly’ locals in that video!
As to your second point, I couldn’t disagree more! There is absolutely nothing in grains that couldn’t be obtained from other more nutritious foods.
Most plant-based sources of vitamins and minerals are less bioavailable than in animal-based foods and, if you eat whole grains (which is what we are often exhorted to do) then you get all of the antinutrients that block their absorption anyway!
Cooking does not eliminate all of the antinutrients either and that has been shown in studies and experiments.
Also, if you look at the nutritional density of these foods you espouse you will see that gram-for-gram they are largely lacking. This is why pro-grain/vegetarian nutritionists only ever list micronutrient content on a per kcal basis because it makes plants look like rich sources when in fact they are not.
We don’t sit down to 200 kcals of spinach or couscous we sit down to a portion that fills the plate and fills our belly. To get the equivalent micronutrient hit of a decent portion of meat you’d have to eat bucket loads of the plant foods.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wheat germ’s nutritional profile is tremendous, and is one of the most nutritionally dense foods around anywhere. It has the most potassium and iron than any other food source, and has more protein than can be found in most meat products.
Here is what whet germ has:
potassium
iron
28 % protein
essential fatty acids
fiber
riboflavin
calcium
zinc
magnesium
selenium
vitamin A
vitamin B1
vitamin B3
vitamin E
folate
phosphorous
thiamin
and to top it all off oxytocin, a powerful substance that helps us produce energy.
Wheat germ is incredible to put it short.
I know a currently 80 year old man in Miami who runs the 100 meters in the Master’s Olympics. This man is a huge fan of wheat germ. At the age of 70 he ran it in 14.68 seconds. At he age of 78 he ran it in 17 seconds. His fellow competitors are either dead ( so he wins by default) or too far gone to compete anymore .
This man has always been healthy looking and in fact looks younger than DeVany , Sisson and other paleo guys for HIS age. His face is less worn than those guys.
He eats no special diet (other than wheat germ supplementation and meats veggies and fruit smoothies included).
Will mark Sisson or any other Paleo anti grain person here be doing that at that age????????
I am sorry but Lyle McDonald is right. Grains are not bad, especially wheat germ.
Ever heard of genetics? My great grandpa lived into his mid 90s smoking a pipe his entire life. Smoking must be good for you! Ronnie Coleman has more muscle than I will ever have, even if I have a garden hose IV pumping roids into me. These folks are genetically superior in these areas.
Your friend may have a slow oxidizing metabolism and may tolerate grains quite well. Again, are they optimal? Remove the wheat germ and add a sugar pill or multi-vitamin. I bet the results are the same.
My Grandpa could tolerate tobacco smoke, but two of my grandmas died of emphysema at much younger ages. Feed me grains and you get acid reflux and inflammation galore.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
With regard to wheat germ:
iron
Dietary iron can be obtained either as heme iron from beef, lamb, pork and poultry or as nonheme iron from vegetables, whole grains, fortified grain products, and supplements. Beef and chicken liver are the richest sources of iron. In general, red meats, e.g., beef, veal, lamb, are richer in iron than white meat, e.g., poutlry, fish. Heme iron is more bioavailable than nonheme iron because it is a soluble complex absorbed intact by endocytosis. Nonheme iron may form insoluble complexes in the alkaline medium of the small intestines rendering it unavailable for mucosal uptake. Absorption of nonheme iron also depends on availability of an iron-binding mucosal transport protein (transferrin) to facilitate uptake from the intestines.
http://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/nutrition/factsheets/iron.html
Essential fatty acids
At a poor ratio of 7.3:1 in favour of omega-6. Also, the omega-3 is the ‘parent oil’ which requires chain elongation into the much more useful forms DHA and EPA. This is very poor in humans.
Fiber
There is no convincing evidence that fibre is required by humans. It is likely an irritant to the gut lining, damages the delicate epithelial cells and causes lesions that may lead to more serious complications in later life.
Vitamin A
According to nutritiondata.com, 100g of wheat germ has no vitamin A in its most bioavailable form retinol.
Vitamin E
There is no data for vitamin E content of wheat germ on nutritiondata.com. (or any other major fat-soluble vitamin.
Folate
Studies have shown that the bioavailability of folate was lowest for wheat germ!
As I said, it’s not about how much there is of the stuff in there but how bioavailable it is to the body – and in most cases it is not bioavailable in the first place or comes packaged with antinutrients that block its absorption.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alex,
A hearty thank you for putting the nail in the coffin on this issue. Why are we even entertaining this troll? It’s obvious no amount of logic will ever disabuse him of this grain-praising.
None of the many people I have helped give up grains regret it. Not one. Bucklesnarf, if you enjoy grains, then keep eating them and good luck to you. I hope they help you live a long and healthy life. I know they won’t for me, or many of the rest of us.
According the Center for Disease Control, at LEAST one 3rd of Americans are in some way intolerant to wheat/gluten that they know about. How positive can anyone be that they aren’t in the unlucky one 3rd, or that the 1/3 isn’t more like 1/2 to 2/3?
Keep up the great work Grok!
The key words here: “that they know about”
I’d put my money on it, that if there was a large scale grain elimination diet study done, we could stick a 3/4 number on that figure.
Thanks Bryce, and thanks for contributing. This troll is too stupid to try eliminating grains and seeing what happens. Proof is in the Crossfit pudding. Lyle’s forum makes fun of Crossfit too. Why bust your ass with something like crossfit & paleo, when you can just do some heavy sets, take roids, eat pizza and crash diet it back off?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Grains do/did not harm the Costa Ricans, Sardinians, Okiawans, Japanese, Aztecs, Mayans, etc.
Sure, they have a dark side, but everything does .
Grains are a great addition to any diet, they just should not dominate it. All those cultures above used grains as well as their vegetables and fruits.
Sweet potatoes are a great thing to eat, as evidence the Okinawans.
I know at least several of these cultures were fermenters.
Dude, we love and advocate sweet potatoes in athletes and healthy people. Sweet potatoes are a far cry from your white/russet potato that America loves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I enjoy Castle Grok’s site. VERY well done, I just do nto understand the anti grain sentiment around here when numerous cultures ( some of the longest lived in the world) use them.
Thanks. Perhaps you don’t understand, because you’ve never eliminated grains for a period of time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think you mistake cereal grain use as some sort of confirmation of its healthfulness. This is totally unscientific and illogical.
People fortunately survive many foolhardy practices but that does not make them sensible things to do in general!
If you were marooned on a deserted island in the middle of the ocean and the only food source was wild grains then, by all means eating them to survive in the hopes of rescue would be preferable to starvation.
However, if I found myself marooned on a similar island that also had abundant wild game as well as wild grains, I’d definitely opt for the game rather than the grains – I’d leave that for fodder for the animals!
When you boil evolutionary biology down to its simplest components you see that plants create glucose via photosynthesis – they take sunlight an CO2 from their environment as raw materials and synthesise from it what they need to survive. more complicated animal life forms cannot directly absorb sunlight or CO2 to make what they need, so they allow the plants to do that part for them then they eat the plants. Further up the food chain, humans cannot absorb many of the nutrients in plants so they eat the animals that ate the plants that absorbed the sunlight and CO2.
We are able to survive on certain plant foods and cereal grains in the absence of anything better but at a cost that may not be apparent until decades later and even then only in subtle ways.
Full-blown coeliac disease is merely the most symptomatic version of gluten-caused disease. Many people will suffer asymptomatic consequences of their grain consumption. Certain auto-immune diseases can be traced back to asymptomatic gut permeability issue due to grain consumption.
It’s just not worth the risk when you consider that 100g of wheat germ contains paltry amounts of vitamins and minerals compared to the same quantity of lamb’s liver. No one could eat 100g of wheat germ as a meal anyway (eat would be like eating a bowlful of sawdust!) – the most you would ever use is a few tens of grams sprinkled on muesli or baked into bread or maybe added to soup!
Last paragraph reminds me of “AOX & cocoa” hype. Yes cocoa is very high in AOX, but you have to eat 100g of pure cocoa to get the big dose they brag about. About the only people who can stomach that much cocoa are us non-sugar addicted paleos. Everyone else would gag from the bitterness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So if someone still had to have some grains and starches , which ones are the worst, and which ones are still acceptable in smaller amounts?
Now your starting to make sense except for the “had to have” part. If you want to try paleo, we’ll support you, not laugh at you and call a dumbshit when you have a question *cough* like other places on the web
Obviously we’re human and not perfect, so an 80/20 rules is a standard we follow. 80% (most of us much more) of the time we eat the right way, the other 20% we let in forbidden stuff. 20% ends up being quiet a bit of cheating if you ask me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bucklesnarf,
First, to be clear, noone actually needs carbohydrate, in any quantity to survive. Your body is quite capable of making all the glucose you need from protein in your liver, through gluconeogenesis, and the rest of your body and some functions of your brain are perfectly happy running on ketones.
That being said, CastleGrok mentioned that sweet potatoes, and I’d submit a banana here and there, aren’t going to bother someone who’s very well adapted to carbohydrate metabolism. If you have no metabolic syndrome (normal fasting glucose/insulin), then you can probably handle some starch.
One thing I emphasize when I tell people about the paleo diet: it’s not about avoiding carbs/starches, it’s about avoiding foods we were not meant to eat. While avoiding starch can accelerate weight loss, a healthy lean person shouldn’t fear them.
-Bryce
“it’s not about avoiding carbs/starches”
Right! when I’m eating “normal” it’s nothing for me to still eat 200 carbs a day in non-starchy vegetables. That’s hardly a low-carb diet, but it’s hyper-low compared to my old sad diet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
T. Colin Campbell Dr. Esselstyn, Dr. Ornish . They claim their plant based diets reverse disease. They all claim grain and starch consumption has health benefits.
They say their studies have passed peer review.
They are all very critical of the paleo community and say they have the science to back it up?
Comments?
Paleo is a plant based diet if you want it to be!
Solid meat diets reduce disease also!
I didn’t know anyone still gave a shit about the China Study except Vegans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Are you for real? That is a joke isn’t it?!
T Colin Campbell’s conclusions to the China Study do not match what the actual data says.
Hardly any of the associations reached statistical significance and the biggest positive correlations with cancer that they actually found was with plant proteins, carbohydrates and fibre while the only negative correlations they found were with fats.
Read the details here:
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
This is why your penchant for reliance on argumentum ad verecundiam and ipse dixit leads you to look foolish – you believe, at face value, what these so called ‘experts’ tell you rather than check whether what they say matches the facts!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What peer reviewed literaure has he published or qualifications does he have to write such a review?
Is this guy a credible source of information? Most likely not.
I know lots of people with advanced degrees who are deeply lacking in the common sense dept.. As a matter of fact, maybe most of them. Letters after your name are not a marker of intelligence or common sense. This is flaw in our society that’s getting worse. Nobody knew who Einstein was while writing most of his stuff as a patent clerk. Boy, what an un-credible source of information he turn out to be!
What are Lyle McDonald’s credentials?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LOL! There you go again! What difference does it make? The data is the data – it doesn’t match the conclusions Campbell came up with – you don’t have to be a PhD to see that!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I thought for a minute bucklesnarf might be seeing the light. There I go thinking again!
Give me one reason why bucklesnarf needs grains in his diet other than for fueling his pride? Let go of the pride man! We won’t judge.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lyle McDonald has a Master’s degree from UCLA I believe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK, I will give no grains a try.
Good for you man. Just make sure you’re honest about it. It’s pretty tough at first, mostly because you don’t know how to eat, but also you will see how big of a drug those grains really are. You literally won’t be able to eat almost anything from a box or can, which makes things extremely inconvenient at first.
Once you learn how to cook and your taste buds begin to change (several weeks minimum) it starts getting much easier.
Check out my Primal Transition Tips and paleo sabotage articles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, if you truly must play that game (yawn!), Chris Masterjohn – who wrote the rebuttal to T Colin Campbell’s conclusions from the China Study – is studying for his PhD in Nutritional Sciences (specialising in Biochemical and Molecular Nutrition) at the University of Connecticut. Here has published two peer-reviewed papers which are available on PubMed!
However, it is not that that cuts any ice with me, it is the fact that he makes logical, verifiable arguments based on the actual available data. I downloaded the full China Study paper myself and checked his facts – and he was correct! T Colin Campbell just spouts what he wants you to believe and the data be hanged – and because he has ‘credentials’ people accept what he says without question and without checking his ‘facts’ for themselves. Lazy!
In fairness to his credentials comment, I asked in a comment above. Good stuff though. I wish I could make the time to read more of these papers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow very informative posting!!
I’ve actually worked with some anthropologists and research psychologists on stuff regarding dietary stuff and your posting is very intelligent!
I was wondering what your take on the modern diet is in terms of what we should be doing? I recently read a posting from the FDA stating that every American should be on dietary suppliments, even if they are eating all organic, because American food simply does not have the 40-something nutrients that are needed on a daily basis. Anyways I used to be doing the one-a-day multi-vitamin thing but I hear that’s not the best for you because the body can’t absorb all of the daily nutrients it needs quickly enough for a single tablet to be effective.
Anyways I recently switched onto this nutrition program designed by this doctor who actually won the Nobel Prize for his work on this program and have felt amazing ever since, and it is amazing for weight maintenance/gain/loss depending on which track you take, but I was wondering what your take on dietary suppliments was in terms of staying healthy with the modern diet?
I’d love to hear your thoughts, or anyone’s for that matter! If you have time just email me anytime at alexidouvas[at]gmail.com!!
I really look forward to speaking more in the future!!
Wishing you a happy and healthy new years!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Lex, I don’t really go out of my way to supplement. I’ll take multi-vitamins sometimes when I feel like it, or when I’m doing one of my experiments like #SurvivalMonths where my diet is a whole lot of the same. I take a multi-mineral supplement when I remember, and iodine when I have it.
The only supplements I take on a regular basis are cod liver oil, and Vitamin D.
Cod Liver Oil
My body is very sensitive to inflammation, so even with my generally clean (low Omega-6) diet these days, I still take 1-3 tablespoons of CLO a day. The large dose is why I generally use the cheaper Twinlab brand. I’ve also used other more expensive stuff, but saw no additional benefit. This dosage seems to work for me. Exercise is also inflammatory and I beat my body pretty badly with cardio (don’t recommend) sometimes. We’ll see what I have to do when my training is ramped way up.
Vitamin D
I dose about 35-40iu per pound which ends up being about 6,250iu total. I take 5,000iu in gelcap form from NOW and the rest is made up from the Vitamin D in the CLO above.
On the days I take more CLO, I usually wont take the Vitamin D gelcap. On days I know I’m exposed to sick people I’ll usually take an extra gelcap (10k). It usually balances out. I have not been sick nearly as much this year (w/less severity) and my mood has greatly improved.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
As usual, Lyle is a fount of logic and sense. He is absolutely right. Regarding Cordain’s response, some Kenyans eat sorghum raw (and millet), eg:
“Kaveta, another traditional variety, was mixed with salt and eaten raw. It was also harvested and eaten before it was completely ready.”
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-30808-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Read “The Lost Crops of Africa” which documents 60 edible grains species, many in the evolutionary cradle. There is no way grains would not have been consumed for a very long time. Gelada baboons eat raw grains and so do some monkeys, and it’s likely that Australopithecus, 4 million years ago, did as well.
The Paleo diet is a con, and perhaps worse.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
No, Lyle is doing exactly what he accuses the paleo dieters of doing – looking at what people eat NOW (or in the recent past) and extrapolating it to what people ate way back when!
Yes, many Africans eat grains now (as a staple) and may have for decades or centuries but that does not necessarily extrapolate back to paleolithic times.
The difference being that paleo dieters have a great deal of archaeological evidence to draw on for meat eating by our ancient ancestors – not least of which is radioactive isotope evidence from fossilized bones that show animals were the primary source of nutrition.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
You missed the point. Paleo promoters like Prof Cordain like to say that grains would not have been eaten in the Paleolithic because they need cooking, processing etc and require excessive energy to harvest and consume than other foods. This is clearly wrong.
Sure, meat was eaten, and fruit and veges and grains, perhaps seasonally, although millet keeps very well in storage. The Mozambique site is only one; more to come.
And BTW, you have to stick to the Homo sapiens evolutionary cradle in east Africa. You can’t count meat eating in Europe by Neanderthals and early migratory Homo erectus. They are not our ancestors.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I think Cordain has a point. If raw grain consumption was widespread during the palaeolithic then surely no-one would suffer the allergies and intolerances to grains that we see in modern humans (even when those grains are cooked). Overt, symptomatic coeliac disease is just the tip of the iceberg – many more may be suffering asymptomatically and many auto-immune diseases can be traced back to the proteins in grains.
Even those Africans that predominantly eat the grains under discussion suffer malnutrition and ill-health compared to those that consume mostly animal foods.
You say Mozambique is only one site and there are more to come – how do you know?
The evidence for this single site is not exactly that powerful – there could be a million and one reasons for those sorghum traces on those stone tools without jumping to the conclusion that they were eaten and even if they were, there is no way to know if it was as a staple or a fall-back subsistence food.
The Mercader paper mentions that many of the stone tools that had sorghum residues were coated in a yellow-ochre dye or had a similar coloured patina, which suggests another possibility besides food – that of pigment-making, something for which sorghum has a long history.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Alex, first, sorghum and millet, the seminal food grains in east Africa are gluten-free, as are many others in this region.
Celiac disease is a special case, but you will have to quote me even one reputable paper that describes an autoimmune disease of humans attributable to, or related to, grains other than gluten grains. No theoretical biochemicals: I want proof. Gluten is a special case with a genetic basis.
Further, show me proof of other than very limited idiosyncratic allergies and intolerances to grains other than gluten grains, that is not the hallucination of some ‘off the planet’ naturopath or so-called natural healer.
Sure, some people don’t tolerate gluten and others are intolerant of, or allergic to seafood, shellfish, eggs, nuts, soy, even meat, and many, many other foods. If it doesn’t suit you . . . well don’t eat it. We are not genetically homogeneous.
This is not an argument for the Paleo diet, it’s an argument for sensible eating.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Cordain et al have published extensive papers showing that auto-immune diseases are caused by elements in grains besides gluten.
“The cell walls of cereals and legumes contain a storage protein, GRP 180, which also can act as a ligand to self-presented MHC peptides [Dybwad 1996]. Further, peptides contained in dairy proteins (bovine serum albumins–BSA, among many) also may contain peptide sequences which can interact with endogenously presented peptides [Perez-Maceda 1991]. Cereal, legume, dairy, and yeast-free diets potentially have therapeutic benefit in many autoimmune related disorders via their ability to reduce gut permeability and decrease the exogenous antigenic load both from pathogenic bacteria and from potentially self-mimicking dietary peptides.”
http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/grains-leg/grains-legumes-1b.shtml#molecular%20mimicry
Oats also do not contain gluten and are often allowed on gluten-free diets for coeliac sufferers yet I have first-hand experience of someone close to me who had extensive gut problems while eating oats in the absence of any other grains.
She had numerous tests and investigations by doctors and specialists in the field of gastrointestinal medicine who could not pinpoint the cause of her problems.
After a lot of persuasion from me she gave up eating oats and within a short space of time all her symptoms subsided and she felt much better.
Then she suddenly started consuming oats again and the symptoms once more flared up. Since stopping oats permanently she has had no further flare ups.
“extensive gut problems while eating oats in the absence of any other grains.”
Count me in this group. IBS & inflammation issues. Oats were the very last grain I gave up before becoming primal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Alex, this is the seminal Cordain paper:
Cereal Grains: Humanity’s Double-Edged Sword, in Simopoulos AP (ed): Evolutionary Aspects of Nutrition and Health. Diet, Exercise, Genetics and Chronic Disease. World Rev Nutr Diet. Basel, Karger, 1999, vol 84, pp 19–73
Read it here: http://tinyurl.com/ybaz4zs
When it comes to diseases other than celiac disease, this paper is just hypothetical posturing and there is not one trace of evidence for harm caused by gluten-safe grains according to acceptable standards of epidemiological evidence. No randomised trials or even evidence from long-term prospective trials or cross-sectional studies.
On the other hand, there is substantial evidence that consumption of whole grains is protective against type 2 diabetes and heart disease in humans.
http://tinyurl.com/ykc6kwv
And it makes sense of course. Most of the longest-lived, healthy populations that we know of consume grains in balanced quantities.
What do whole grains give me that I can’t get from vegetables? Longest living peoples also have diets high in vegetables & fats. Why is it that we assume it’s the grains?
I also happen to KNOW that most Type II diabetics will benefit from eating almost anything besides Krispy Kremes and ‘All You Can Eat’ pancakes from the truck stop. I live in the mecca of Type II diabetics. Anywhere outside of Seattle in Western Washington is like living with peopleofwalmart.com
When I get stuck following a school bus home from town, makes me want to vomit in my mouth while crying watching the kids waddle out like penguins at each stop
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
What do whole grains, or fruit and vegetables for that matter, give me that I cannot get from meat and eggs? Eggs are a multi-vitamin/mineral in themselves along with EFAs, protein, etc. The only thing they do not have (and we do not need) is carbs and fibre!
Now you’re talking my language
I love raw eggs about as much as life itself. They have a carb
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
What carb do they have? I was looking at a nutritional breakdown for eggs on Chris Masterjohn’s site, so maybe he didn’t list it or it is dependant on the egg and the method used to determine its composition?!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Oh, yeah – 0.4g of sugars per large (50g) egg! Anything under 0.5 tends to get rounded down to zero on nutritional labels!
Ha-ha. Ok then… I eat so damn many that they have a carb
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
“While oats do not appear to naturally contain gluten, like other grains they can become contaminated during harvesting, transporting, milling and processing.”
That’s probably why oats are a problem.
A problem people love. Gotta get that fiber you know ?
?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Paul Rodgers is about 20 years behind the curve, still believing saturated fat causes CAD.
I guess he is unfamiliar with:
* Ancel Keys’ fraud which started all of this
* The 26 long term prospective studies to date, only 4 of which showed even desperately weak associations between saturated fat and CAD, one of which was a beneficial association.
* All 18 clinical randomized (some double blinded) which show no support at all tot he farcical anti saturated fat dogma.
* The numerous cultures from around the world who eat saturated fat rich and have awesome cardiovascular health.
I guess he has not read Anthony Colpo’s brilliant book “The Great Cholesterol Con”, then took the references and verified this awesome information for himself. No one exposes the cholesterol sham better than Colpo – no one. Colpo’s book is sooooo much more detailed than Taubes on saturated fat and cholesterol. If only the public were as familair with it. It is more than a damn shame.
So sad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If I had a buck for every time I came to castlegrok.com! Superb writing!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0