Stone age diet (from the Nutrition Reporter)

What about the Stone Age exercise program? Where you have to walk about 20
miles round trip to even find your calories for the day?

"Ignoramus28403" wrote in message
...
http://www.thenutritionreporter.com/stone_age_diet.html

Paleolithic Nutrition:
Your Future Is In Your Dietary Past


By Jack Challem
Copyright 1997 by Jack Challem, The Nutrition Reporter?.
All rights reserved.



You are what you eat - and, perhaps surprisingly, you also are what
your ancestors ate.


Just as individual genetics and experiences influence your nutritional
requirements, millions of years of evolution have also shaped your
need for specific nutrients.


The implications? Your genes, which control every function of your
body, are essentially the same as those of your early ancestors. Feed
these genes well, and they do their job - keeping your healthy. Give
these genes nutrients that are unfamiliar or in the wrong ratios, and
they go awry - aging faster, malfunctioning, and leading to disease.


According to S. Boyd Eaton, M.D., one of the foremost authorities on
paleolithic (prehistoric) diets, modern diets are out of sync with our
genetic requirements. He makes the point that the less you eat like
your ancestors, the more susceptible you'll be to coronary heart
disease, cancer, diabetes, and many other "diseases of civilization."1
To chart the right direction for improving your current or future
nutrition, you have to understand - and often adopt - the diet of the
past.


The Origins Of Life And Nutrients


It helps to go back to the beginning - the very beginning.


Denham Harman, M.D., Ph.D., who conceived the free radical theory of
aging, also theorized that free radicals were a major player in the
origin and evolution of life on Earth. According to Harman, professor
emeritus of the University of Nebraska, Omaha, free radicals most
likely triggered the chemical reactions that lead to the first and
simplest forms of life some 3.5 billion years ago. But because free
radical oxidation can be destructive, antioxidant defenses - including
vitamins - likely developed soon after and ensured the survival of
life.2


In fact, the first building blocks of life may have been created when
solar radiation oxidized compounds in the primordial oceans and
beaches to produce pantetheine, a form of the B-vitamin pantothenic
acid, according to chemist Stanley L. Miller, Ph.D., of the University
of California, San Diego.3


Pantetheine is the cornerstone of coenzyme A, a molecule that helps
amino acids link together - and makes possible the creation of
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA) the building
blocks of your genes.


Over the next several billion years, many more molecules - amino
acids, lipids, vitamins, and minerals - formed and helped construct
the countless forms of life. In turn, these life forms became
dependent on essentially the same group of nutrients.


According to Eaton, 99 percent of our genetic heritage dates from
before our biological ancestors evolved into Homo sapiens about 40,000
years ago, and 99.99 percent of our genes were formed before the
development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago.


Today's Diet, Yesterday's Genes


What we are - and were - can be deduced from paleontological data
(mostly ancient bones and coprolites) and the observed habits of
hunter-gatherer tribes that survived into the 20th century, according
to Eaton, a radiologist and medical anthropologist at Emory
University.


Before the advent of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, all people
were hunter-gatherers: they gathered various fruits and vegetables to
eat, they hunted animals for their meat. Of course, the ratio of meat
and vegetables varied with geographic location, climate, and season,
people were still hunter-gatherers. Until they began cultivating
grains and livestock, they rarely if ever drank milk beyond infancy or
ate grains .


With the spread of agriculture, people shifted from nomadic groups to
relatively stable and larger societies to tend the fields. Culture and
knowledge flourished. People also began consuming large amounts of
grain, milk, and domesticated meat. And they became more sedentary as
well.


With the industrial revolution, the diet changed even more
dramatically. Beginning around 1900, whole grains were routinely
refined, removing much of their nutrition, and refined sugar started
to become commonplace. Reflecting on the changes in 1939, nutritionist
Jean Bogert noted, "The machine age has had the effect of forcing upon
the peoples of the industrial nations (especially the United States)
the most gigantic human feeding experiment ever attempted.4


Bogert was also disturbed by the growing use of refined cereal grains
and sugar, and how processed foods were becoming more popular than
fresh fruits and vegetables. Over the past 40 years, with the growth
of fast-food restaurants, the average diet has changed even more
dramatically than Bogert could have imagined. People rely even more on
processed rather than fresh foods.


In fact, the many dietary changes over the past 10,000 years have
outpaced our ability to genetically adapt to them, according to
Eaton. "That the vast majority of our genes are ancient in origin
means that nearly all of our biochemistry and physiology are
fine-tuned to conditions of life that existed before 10,000 years
ago," he says.5


Looked at in another way, 100,000 generations of people were
hunter-gatherers, 500 generations have depended on agriculture, and
only 10 generations have lived since the start of the industrial age,
and only two generations have grown up with highly processed fast
foods.


"The problem is that our genes don't know it," Eaton points out. "They
are programming us today in much the same way they have been
programming humans for at least 40,000 years. Genetically, our bodies
now are virtually the same as they were then."6


The Paleolithic Diet


By working with anthropologists, Eaton has created what many experts
consider a clear picture of our prehistoric diet and lifestyle.


Today's panoply of diets - from fast-food burgers to various concepts
of balanced diets and food groups - bear little resemblance,
superficially or in actual nutritional constituents, to the diet
H. sapiens and its ancestors consumed over millions of years. For
example, vitamin intake is lower today and the dietary fatty acid
profile is substantially different from our evolutionary diet. In
other words, our diet today fails to provide the biochemical and
molecular requirements of H. sapiens.7


Here's how the major dietary constituents stack up past and present.


Carbohydrates. Early humans obtained about half of their calories from
carbohydrates, but these carbohydrates were rarely grains. Most
carbohydrates came from vegetables and fruit.


"Current carbohydrates often takes the form of sugars and
sweeteners...Products of this sort, together with items made from
highly refined grain flours constitute empty calories...devoid of
accompanying essential amino and fatty acids, vitamins, minerals and
possibly phytochemicals," says Eaton.8


Fruits, vegetables, and fiber. Over the course of a year,
gatherer-hunters typically consumed more than 100 different species of
fruits and vegetables. These foods provided more than 100 grams of
fiber daily, promoting regular bowel movements. Says Eaton: "The fiber
in preagricultural diets came almost exclusively from fruits, roots,
legumes, nuts and other naturally occurring noncereal plant sources,
so it was less associated with phytic acid than is fiber from cereal
grains." [Phytic acid interferes with mineral absorption.]


Today, fewer than 9 percent of Americans eat the recommended five
daily servings of fruits and vegetables. According to Gladys Block,
Ph.D., a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of California,
Berkeley. Even people who regularly do eat fruits and vegetables
generally limit themselves to a handful of different foods.9


Protein and Fat. Early humans consumed about 30 percent protein,
although it varied with the season and geographic location. Much of
this protein came from what people now call "game meat" -
undomesticated animals, such as deer and bison.10


Based on contemporary studies of hunter-gatherer societies, early
humans consumed relatively large amounts of cholesterol (480 mg
daily), but their blood cholesterol levels were much lower than those
of the average American (about 125 mg per deciliter of blood). There
are a couple of reasons for this.


One, domestication of animals increases their saturated fat levels and
alters the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids. Most Americans
consume an 11:1 ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids. But a more
ideal ratio, based on evolutionary and anthropological data, would be
in the range of 1:1 to 4:1. In other words, our ancestors consumed a
higher percentage of omega-3 fatty acids - and we probably should too.


Two, gathering and hunting required considerable physical effort,
which means early humans exercised a lot, which would have burned fat
and lowered cholesterol levels. "Their nomadic foraging lifestyle
required vigorous physical exertion, and skeletal remains indicate
that they were typically more muscular than we are today," says
Eaton. "Life during the agricultural period was also strenuous, but
industrialization has progressively reduced obligatory physical
exertion."11


Vitamins and minerals. Game meats and wild plant foods contain higher
amounts of vitamins and minerals relative to their protein and
carbohydrates. Observes Eaton: "The fruits, nuts, legumes, roots and
other noncereals that provided 65-70% of typical gatherer-hunter
subsistence were generally consumed within hours of being gathered,
with little or no processing and often uncooked...it seems inescapable
that preagrarian humans would generally have had an intake of most
vitamins and minerals that exceeded currently recommended dietary
allowances."12


The difference in consumption of sodium and potassium - electrolyte
minerals necessary for normal heart function - is especially
dramatic. According to Eaton, the typical adult American consumes
about 4,000 mg of sodium daily, but less than 10 percent of this
amount occurs naturally in food. The rest is added during processing,
cooking, or seasoning at the table. Potassium consumption is lower,
about 3,000 mg daily.


In contrast, early humans consumed only an estimated 600 mg to the
theory of "punctuated equilibrium," proposed by Niles Eldredge, Ph.D.,
and Stephen Jay Gould, Ph.D., of Harvard University, catastrophic
events - such as an asteroid striking the Earth - can dramatically
shift the course of evolution.14


One such catastrophic event of an unknown nature affected the
pre-primate ancestors of humans sometime between 25 and 70 million
years ago, according to biochemist Irwin Stone, Ph.D. This particular
event led to a mutation that prevented our all of this species'
descendants from manufacturing own vitamin C. At least some of the
species survived and evolved into H. sapiens because they lived in a
lush equatorial region with vitamin C-rich foods. But nearly all other
species of animals, from insects to mammals, continued to produce
their own vitamin C.


This theory regarding how our evolutionary ancestors lost their
ability to produce vitamin C is generally accepted by scientists,
Stone's other theory is more controversial. He contended that people
never lost the need for large amounts of vitamin C, even though they
lost the ability to make it. Based on animal data, he estimated that
people might require 1.8-13 grams of vitamin C daily.15


Ironically, losing the ability to produce vitamin C may have actually
accelerated the evolution of primates into modern human beings,
according to a new theory. Vitamin C is an important antioxidant, and
losing the ability to produce it would have allowed the formation of
large number of free radicals. These excessive free radicals would
have caused large numbers of DNA mutations, contributing to the aging
process and diseases. Some of these mutations would also have been
inherited by offspring, creating many biological variations - one of
which eventually become H. sapiens.16


A Diet For The Future


For much of human history, life span was not particularly long. Two
thousand years ago, the average life expectancy was a mere 22 years,
and infections and traumatic injury were the principal causes of
death. Better hygiene and sanitation have largely accounted for the
dramatic improvement in life expectancy in the 20th century.


Now, as people live longer, they are increasingly susceptible to
greater amounts of free radical damage and their principal endpoints,
cardiovascular disease and cancer.


The question: where do we and our diets go from here?


Our evolutionary diet provides important clues to the "baseline"
levels and ratios of nutrients needed for health. The evidence
suggests we should be eating a lot of plant foods and modest amounts
of game meat, but no grains or dairy products. With a clear
understanding of this diet, we have an opportunity to adopt to a
better, more natural diet. We can also do a better job of
individualizing and optimizing our nutritional requirements.


Based on our evolutionary and paleolithic diets, it's clear that
modern diets are on the wrong track - and that our diets are not
satisfying our genetic requirements. In 1939, the same year that
Bogert bemoaned the rise of highly refined foods, Nobel laureate
Albert Szent-Gyrgyi, M.D., Ph.D., explored the importance of optimal
(and not just minimal) requirements of vitamins. Years later, Roger
Williams, Ph.D., and Linus Pauling, Ph.D., would also promote the
concept of optimal nutrition, based on providing ideal levels of
vitamins and other nutrients on a molecular level.


Pauling eloquently and often observed that health depended on the
presence of nutritional molecules. To set a dietary course for the
future, we have to recognize how certain molecules shaped our lives
over millions of years. Paleolithic diets provide provide those clues
- and give us a sound foundation to build on, perhaps to protect and
prime our genes even further.


__________


A note to my friends who don't believe in evolution: Evolution
describes the mechanism of how life develops, but says nothing about
whether a higher being was guiding the process. Regardless, the diet
of today is very different from, and not always as good as, the diet
of the past.



1 Eaton SB, Eaton SB III, ge 1994;17:119-46.
3 Keefe AD, Newton GL, and Miller SL, "A possible prebiotic synthesis
of pantetheine, a precursor to coenzyme A," Nature, Feb. 23,
1995;373:683-5.
4 Bogert LJ, Nutrition and Physical Fitness, Philadelphia: Saunders,
1939:437.
5 Eaton SB, Shostak M, and Konner M, The Paleolithic Prescription: A
program of diet & exercise and a design for living, New York: Harper &
Row, 1988:39.
6 Eaton, et al., op cit, 1988:41.
7 Eaton, et al., op cit, 1996.
8 Eaton, et al., op cit, 1996.
9 Patterson BH, Block G, Rosenberger WF, et al., "Fruit and vegetables
in the American diet: data from the NHANES II survey," American
Journal of Public Health, December 1990, 80:1443-1449.
10 Eaton SB and Konner M, "Paleolithic Nutrition: A consideration of
its nature and current implications," New England Journal of Medicine,
Jan 31, 1983;312:283-9.
11 Eaton, et al., op cit, 1996.
12 Eaton, et al., op cit, 1996.
13 Eaton, et al., op cit, 1996.
14 Eldredge N, and Gould SJ, "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to
phyletic gradualism," in Models in paleobiology, Schopf TJM, editor,
San Francisco: Freeman Cooper, 1972.
15 Stone I, "Hypoascorbemia, the genetic disease causing the human
requirement for exogenous ascorbic acid." Perspect Biol Med
1966;10:133-4.
16 Challem JJ, "Did the Loss of Endogenous Ascorbate Propel the
Evolution of Anthropoidea and Homo sapiens?" Medical Hypotheses, in
press.



This article originally appeared in Nutrition Science News. The
information provided by Jack Challem and The Nutrition Reporter?
newsletter is strictly educational and not intended as medical
advice. For diagnosis and treatment, consult your physician.


copyright 1998 The Nutrition Reporter? - updated 05/25/98
for more information contact
return to www.thenutritionreporter.com/ (The Nutrition Reporter
homepage)
you are at: www.thenutritionreporter.com/stone_age_diet.html

What about the Stone Age exercise program? Where you have to walk about 20
miles round trip to even find your calories for the day?

"Ignoramus28403" wrote in message
...
http://www.thenutritionreporter.com/stone_age_diet.html

Paleolithic Nutrition:
Your Future Is In Your Dietary Past


By Jack Challem
Copyright 1997 by Jack Challem, The Nutrition Reporter?.
All rights reserved.



You are what you eat - and, perhaps surprisingly, you also are what
your ancestors ate.


Just as individual genetics and experiences influence your nutritional
requirements, millions of years of evolution have also shaped your
need for specific nutrients.


The implications? Your genes, which control every function of your
body, are essentially the same as those of your early ancestors. Feed
these genes well, and they do their job - keeping your healthy. Give
these genes nutrients that are unfamiliar or in the wrong ratios, and
they go awry - aging faster, malfunctioning, and leading to disease.


According to S. Boyd Eaton, M.D., one of the foremost authorities on
paleolithic (prehistoric) diets, modern diets are out of sync with our
genetic requirements. He makes the point that the less you eat like
your ancestors, the more susceptible you'll be to coronary heart
disease, cancer, diabetes, and many other "diseases of civilization."1
To chart the right direction for improving your current or future
nutrition, you have to understand - and often adopt - the diet of the
past.


The Origins Of Life And Nutrients


It helps to go back to the beginning - the very beginning.


Denham Harman, M.D., Ph.D., who conceived the free radical theory of
aging, also theorized that free radicals were a major player in the
origin and evolution of life on Earth. According to Harman, professor
emeritus of the University of Nebraska, Omaha, free radicals most
likely triggered the chemical reactions that lead to the first and
simplest forms of life some 3.5 billion years ago. But because free
radical oxidation can be destructive, antioxidant defenses - including
vitamins - likely developed soon after and ensured the survival of
life.2


In fact, the first building blocks of life may have been created when
solar radiation oxidized compounds in the primordial oceans and
beaches to produce pantetheine, a form of the B-vitamin pantothenic
acid, according to chemist Stanley L. Miller, Ph.D., of the University
of California, San Diego.3


Pantetheine is the cornerstone of coenzyme A, a molecule that helps
amino acids link together - and makes possible the creation of
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA) the building
blocks of your genes.


Over the next several billion years, many more molecules - amino
acids, lipids, vitamins, and minerals - formed and helped construct
the countless forms of life. In turn, these life forms became
dependent on essentially the same group of nutrients.


According to Eaton, 99 percent of our genetic heritage dates from
before our biological ancestors evolved into Homo sapiens about 40,000
years ago, and 99.99 percent of our genes were formed before the
development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago.


Today's Diet, Yesterday's Genes


What we are - and were - can be deduced from paleontological data
(mostly ancient bones and coprolites) and the observed habits of
hunter-gatherer tribes that survived into the 20th century, according
to Eaton, a radiologist and medical anthropologist at Emory
University.


Before the advent of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, all people
were hunter-gatherers: they gathered various fruits and vegetables to
eat, they hunted animals for their meat. Of course, the ratio of meat
and vegetables varied with geographic location, climate, and season,
people were still hunter-gatherers. Until they began cultivating
grains and livestock, they rarely if ever drank milk beyond infancy or
ate grains .


With the spread of agriculture, people shifted from nomadic groups to
relatively stable and larger societies to tend the fields. Culture and
knowledge flourished. People also began consuming large amounts of
grain, milk, and domesticated meat. And they became more sedentary as
well.


With the industrial revolution, the diet changed even more
dramatically. Beginning around 1900, whole grains were routinely
refined, removing much of their nutrition, and refined sugar started
to become commonplace. Reflecting on the changes in 1939, nutritionist
Jean Bogert noted, "The machine age has had the effect of forcing upon
the peoples of the industrial nations (especially the United States)
the most gigantic human feeding experiment ever attempted.4


Bogert was also disturbed by the growing use of refined cereal grains
and sugar, and how processed foods were becoming more popular than
fresh fruits and vegetables. Over the past 40 years, with the growth
of fast-food restaurants, the average diet has changed even more
dramatically than Bogert could have imagined. People rely even more on
processed rather than fresh foods.


In fact, the many dietary changes over the past 10,000 years have
outpaced our ability to genetically adapt to them, according to
Eaton. "That the vast majority of our genes are ancient in origin
means that nearly all of our biochemistry and physiology are
fine-tuned to conditions of life that existed before 10,000 years
ago," he says.5


Looked at in another way, 100,000 generations of people were
hunter-gatherers, 500 generations have depended on agriculture, and
only 10 generations have lived since the start of the industrial age,
and only two generations have grown up with highly processed fast
foods.


"The problem is that our genes don't know it," Eaton points out. "They
are programming us today in much the same way they have been
programming humans for at least 40,000 years. Genetically, our bodies
now are virtually the same as they were then."6


The Paleolithic Diet


By working with anthropologists, Eaton has created what many experts
consider a clear picture of our prehistoric diet and lifestyle.


Today's panoply of diets - from fast-food burgers to various concepts
of balanced diets and food groups - bear little resemblance,
superficially or in actual nutritional constituents, to the diet
H. sapiens and its ancestors consumed over millions of years. For
example, vitamin intake is lower today and the dietary fatty acid
profile is substantially different from our evolutionary diet. In
other words, our diet today fails to provide the biochemical and
molecular requirements of H. sapiens.7


Here's how the major dietary constituents stack up past and present.


Carbohydrates. Early humans obtained about half of their calories from
carbohydrates, but these carbohydrates were rarely grains. Most
carbohydrates came from vegetables and fruit.


"Current carbohydrates often takes the form of sugars and
sweeteners...Products of this sort, together with items made from
highly refined grain flours constitute empty calories...devoid of
accompanying essential amino and fatty acids, vitamins, minerals and
possibly phytochemicals," says Eaton.8


Fruits, vegetables, and fiber. Over the course of a year,
gatherer-hunters typically consumed more than 100 different species of
fruits and vegetables. These foods provided more than 100 grams of
fiber daily, promoting regular bowel movements. Says Eaton: "The fiber
in preagricultural diets came almost exclusively from fruits, roots,
legumes, nuts and other naturally occurring noncereal plant sources,
so it was less associated with phytic acid than is fiber from cereal
grains." [Phytic acid interferes with mineral absorption.]


Today, fewer than 9 percent of Americans eat the recommended five
daily servings of fruits and vegetables. According to Gladys Block,
Ph.D., a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of California,
Berkeley. Even people who regularly do eat fruits and vegetables
generally limit themselves to a handful of different foods.9


Protein and Fat. Early humans consumed about 30 percent protein,
although it varied with the season and geographic location. Much of
this protein came from what people now call "game meat" -
undomesticated animals, such as deer and bison.10


Based on contemporary studies of hunter-gatherer societies, early
humans consumed relatively large amounts of cholesterol (480 mg
daily), but their blood cholesterol levels were much lower than those
of the average American (about 125 mg per deciliter of blood). There
are a couple of reasons for this.


One, domestication of animals increases their saturated fat levels and
alters the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids. Most Americans
consume an 11:1 ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids. But a more
ideal ratio, based on evolutionary and anthropological data, would be
in the range of 1:1 to 4:1. In other words, our ancestors consumed a
higher percentage of omega-3 fatty acids - and we probably should too.


Two, gathering and hunting required considerable physical effort,
which means early humans exercised a lot, which would have burned fat
and lowered cholesterol levels. "Their nomadic foraging lifestyle
required vigorous physical exertion, and skeletal remains indicate
that they were typically more muscular than we are today," says
Eaton. "Life during the agricultural period was also strenuous, but
industrialization has progressively reduced obligatory physical
exertion."11


Vitamins and minerals. Game meats and wild plant foods contain higher
amounts of vitamins and minerals relative to their protein and
carbohydrates. Observes Eaton: "The fruits, nuts, legumes, roots and
other noncereals that provided 65-70% of typical gatherer-hunter
subsistence were generally consumed within hours of being gathered,
with little or no processing and often uncooked...it seems inescapable
that preagrarian humans would generally have had an intake of most
vitamins and minerals that exceeded currently recommended dietary
allowances."12


The difference in consumption of sodium and potassium - electrolyte
minerals necessary for normal heart function - is especially
dramatic. According to Eaton, the typical adult American consumes
about 4,000 mg of sodium daily, but less than 10 percent of this
amount occurs naturally in food. The rest is added during processing,
cooking, or seasoning at the table. Potassium consumption is lower,
about 3,000 mg daily.


In contrast, early humans consumed only an estimated 600 mg to the
theory of "punctuated equilibrium," proposed by Niles Eldredge, Ph.D.,
and Stephen Jay Gould, Ph.D., of Harvard University, catastrophic
events - such as an asteroid striking the Earth - can dramatically
shift the course of evolution.14


One such catastrophic event of an unknown nature affected the
pre-primate ancestors of humans sometime between 25 and 70 million
years ago, according to biochemist Irwin Stone, Ph.D. This particular
event led to a mutation that prevented our all of this species'
descendants from manufacturing own vitamin C. At least some of the
species survived and evolved into H. sapiens because they lived in a
lush equatorial region with vitamin C-rich foods. But nearly all other
species of animals, from insects to mammals, continued to produce
their own vitamin C.


This theory regarding how our evolutionary ancestors lost their
ability to produce vitamin C is generally accepted by scientists,
Stone's other theory is more controversial. He contended that people
never lost the need for large amounts of vitamin C, even though they
lost the ability to make it. Based on animal data, he estimated that
people might require 1.8-13 grams of vitamin C daily.15


Ironically, losing the ability to produce vitamin C may have actually
accelerated the evolution of primates into modern human beings,
according to a new theory. Vitamin C is an important antioxidant, and
losing the ability to produce it would have allowed the formation of
large number of free radicals. These excessive free radicals would
have caused large numbers of DNA mutations, contributing to the aging
process and diseases. Some of these mutations would also have been
inherited by offspring, creating many biological variations - one of
which eventually become H. sapiens.16


A Diet For The Future


For much of human history, life span was not particularly long. Two
thousand years ago, the average life expectancy was a mere 22 years,
and infections and traumatic injury were the principal causes of
death. Better hygiene and sanitation have largely accounted for the
dramatic improvement in life expectancy in the 20th century.


Now, as people live longer, they are increasingly susceptible to
greater amounts of free radical damage and their principal endpoints,
cardiovascular disease and cancer.


The question: where do we and our diets go from here?


Our evolutionary diet provides important clues to the "baseline"
levels and ratios of nutrients needed for health. The evidence
suggests we should be eating a lot of plant foods and modest amounts
of game meat, but no grains or dairy products. With a clear
understanding of this diet, we have an opportunity to adopt to a
better, more natural diet. We can also do a better job of
individualizing and optimizing our nutritional requirements.


Based on our evolutionary and paleolithic diets, it's clear that
modern diets are on the wrong track - and that our diets are not
satisfying our genetic requirements. In 1939, the same year that
Bogert bemoaned the rise of highly refined foods, Nobel laureate
Albert Szent-Gyrgyi, M.D., Ph.D., explored the importance of optimal
(and not just minimal) requirements of vitamins. Years later, Roger
Williams, Ph.D., and Linus Pauling, Ph.D., would also promote the
concept of optimal nutrition, based on providing ideal levels of
vitamins and other nutrients on a molecular level.


Pauling eloquently and often observed that health depended on the
presence of nutritional molecules. To set a dietary course for the
future, we have to recognize how certain molecules shaped our lives
over millions of years. Paleolithic diets provide provide those clues
- and give us a sound foundation to build on, perhaps to protect and
prime our genes even further.


__________


A note to my friends who don't believe in evolution: Evolution
describes the mechanism of how life develops, but says nothing about
whether a higher being was guiding the process. Regardless, the diet
of today is very different from, and not always as good as, the diet
of the past.



1 Eaton SB, Eaton SB III, ge 1994;17:119-46.
3 Keefe AD, Newton GL, and Miller SL, "A possible prebiotic synthesis
of pantetheine, a precursor to coenzyme A," Nature, Feb. 23,
1995;373:683-5.
4 Bogert LJ, Nutrition and Physical Fitness, Philadelphia: Saunders,
1939:437.
5 Eaton SB, Shostak M, and Konner M, The Paleolithic Prescription: A
program of diet & exercise and a design for living, New York: Harper &
Row, 1988:39.
6 Eaton, et al., op cit, 1988:41.
7 Eaton, et al., op cit, 1996.
8 Eaton, et al., op cit, 1996.
9 Patterson BH, Block G, Rosenberger WF, et al., "Fruit and vegetables
in the American diet: data from the NHANES II survey," American
Journal of Public Health, December 1990, 80:1443-1449.
10 Eaton SB and Konner M, "Paleolithic Nutrition: A consideration of
its nature and current implications," New England Journal of Medicine,
Jan 31, 1983;312:283-9.
11 Eaton, et al., op cit, 1996.
12 Eaton, et al., op cit, 1996.
13 Eaton, et al., op cit, 1996.
14 Eldredge N, and Gould SJ, "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to
phyletic gradualism," in Models in paleobiology, Schopf TJM, editor,
San Francisco: Freeman Cooper, 1972.
15 Stone I, "Hypoascorbemia, the genetic disease causing the human
requirement for exogenous ascorbic acid." Perspect Biol Med
1966;10:133-4.
16 Challem JJ, "Did the Loss of Endogenous Ascorbate Propel the
Evolution of Anthropoidea and Homo sapiens?" Medical Hypotheses, in
press.



This article originally appeared in Nutrition Science News. The
information provided by Jack Challem and The Nutrition Reporter?
newsletter is strictly educational and not intended as medical
advice. For diagnosis and treatment, consult your physician.


copyright 1998 The Nutrition Reporter? - updated 05/25/98
for more information contact
return to www.thenutritionreporter.com/ (The Nutrition Reporter
homepage)
you are at: www.thenutritionreporter.com/stone_age_diet.html

On 10 Feb 2005 19:57:20 GMT, Ignoramus28403
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:34:06 GMT, Patricia Heil wrote:


What about the Stone Age exercise program? Where you have to walk about 20
miles round trip to even find your calories for the day?

I am doubtful that those hunters had to walk 20 miles per day, but you
definitely have a good point.


They would have foraged in the general area around them and when
things got scarce then they moved to another area. They probably even
followed the migrating herds as those would have been thier first
source of food.

************************************************** **
You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is!
************************************************** **

Ignoramus28403 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:34:06 GMT, Patricia Heil
wrote:


What about the Stone Age exercise program? Where you have to walk
about 20
miles round trip to even find your calories for the day?

I am doubtful that those hunters had to walk 20 miles per day,

?????? What, do you think the antelope just leaped into their arms and
said "eat me"? Hunters, both human and animal walk miles and miles to
find their prey. And human hunters were at a distinct disadvantage
compared to the speed of a cheetah, or the strength of a lion.

The Bushmen of the Kalihari hunt. They walk endless amount of miles.

And if you think a pride of great lions is going to give up their
animal carcass to humans, well, you've spent too much in Junk Science
Land.

And this isn't even mentioning the fact that early man was prey to
other, stronger species.

Martha
wishes more would take off the junk science, rose-colored glasses

Ignoramus28403 wrote:
Note how the passage below talks about vigorous walking for 2 to 3
hours per day. That would amount to perhaps 6-12 miles per day, not
20. A big difference. Considering that our ancestors were shorter in
statute, their "vigorous walking" could be at, say, 3.5 miles per
hour. Considering, also, that their activity was not limited by
walking, 10-12 miles per day is the absolute top estimate, with even
less of the actual walking (if we go by the estimates from the quoted
article).

Soldiers would regularly go over 20 miles a day carrying full gear.

"Black Metal Martha" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ignoramus28403 wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:34:06 GMT, Patricia Heil
wrote:


What about the Stone Age exercise program? Where you have to walk
about 20
miles round trip to even find your calories for the day?

I am doubtful that those hunters had to walk 20 miles per day,

?????? What, do you think the antelope just leaped into their arms and
said "eat me"? Hunters, both human and animal walk miles and miles to
find their prey. And human hunters were at a distinct disadvantage
compared to the speed of a cheetah, or the strength of a lion.

The Bushmen of the Kalihari hunt. They walk endless amount of miles.

And if you think a pride of great lions is going to give up their
animal carcass to humans, well, you've spent too much in Junk Science
Land.

And this isn't even mentioning the fact that early man was prey to
other, stronger species.

Martha
wishes more would take off the junk science, rose-colored glasses


Hmmm...20 miles seems like an awful lot to me. At 3 mph (a reasonable pace
for hunting, but too high for "stalking) a 20 mile walk would take 6 hours
and 40 minutes. For a 25-year old, 5' 8" 150 lb male, that would burn about
1550 calories, in addition to the 2000 or so daily caloric requirement.

I would think that hunter-gatherer types would, ideally, move as little as
possible to conserve energy. Lions, for instance, spend a lot more time
napping than they do hunting, and surely don't walk for 6 hours per day
unless they're migrating to a new area.

Do you have any studies you could cite to back up your claim that the
Kalihari Bushmen walk an "endless amount of miles"?

GG

Black Metal Martha wrote:
:: Ignoramus28403 wrote:
::: On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:34:06 GMT, Patricia Heil
::: wrote:
::::
::::
:::: What about the Stone Age exercise program? Where you have to walk
:::: about 20 miles round trip to even find your calories for the day?
:::
::: I am doubtful that those hunters had to walk 20 miles per day,
::
:: ?????? What, do you think the antelope just leaped into their arms
:: and said "eat me"? Hunters, both human and animal walk miles and
:: miles to find their prey. And human hunters were at a distinct
:: disadvantage compared to the speed of a cheetah, or the strength of
:: a lion.

Cheetahs and lions probably didn't cover 20 miles per day, specially lions.
Humans had bigger brains and did not have to compete on the basis of speed
or strength.

::
:: The Bushmen of the Kalihari hunt. They walk endless amount of miles.
::

Endless amount of miles? What exactly is that. Do you have proof?

:: And if you think a pride of great lions is going to give up their
:: animal carcass to humans, well, you've spent too much in Junk Science
:: Land.
::

?? That's not very convincing.

:: And this isn't even mentioning the fact that early man was prey to
:: other, stronger species.

And? It is very likely that ancient man would have become extinct if he had
to walk 20 miles per day to eat.

::
:: Martha
:: wishes more would take off the junk science, rose-colored glasses

Hmmm....

Hi,
On 10-Feb-2005, Abbey Smart wrote:

Ignoramus28403 wrote:
Note how the passage below talks about vigorous walking for 2 to 3
hours per day. That would amount to perhaps 6-12 miles per day,
not 20. A big difference. Considering that our ancestors were
shorter
in statute, their "vigorous walking" could be at, say, 3.5 miles
per
hour. Considering, also, that their activity was not limited by
walking, 10-12 miles per day is the absolute top estimate, with
even less of the actual walking (if we go by the estimates from
the
quoted article).

Soldiers would regularly go over 20 miles a day carrying full gear.

My husband is active duty Army and they did a 6-mile road march last
Monday morning with rucksack - before breakfast. He's 41.

Take care,
Carmen
--
Please note change in Reply To address carmensrt at gmail dot com
Hotmail isn't working and is being abandoned

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:02:14 -0800, Abbey Smart wrote:



Ignoramus28403 wrote:
Soldiers would regularly go over 20 miles a day carrying full gear.
That's true, but they are soldiers, not hunter gatherers.

Which would make one suspect that they are in far better shape
and would have no trouble ranging far and wide.

Isn't how native americans caught horses is because of the
stamina humans have? We may not be fast but we can walk all
day without any problem. That's not true for other animals,
so that gives us the advantage.

I always thought they ran them into a trap. This way, some of the people
get tire but most don't.

--
Bob in CT

Ignoramus28403 wrote:
Soldiers would regularly go over 20 miles a day carrying full gear.

That's true, but they are soldiers, not hunter gatherers.

Which would make one suspect that they are in far better shape
and would have no trouble ranging far and wide.

Isn't how native americans caught horses is because of the
stamina humans have? We may not be fast but we can walk all
day without any problem. That's not true for other animals,
so that gives us the advantage.