OT Primitive diet

[Dave28210]

Interesting...but don't forget that we live to be a LOT older than out ancestors ever did!

That is not necessarily on account of diet...but it's worth considering that despite our general disapproval of the way society has gone, it's a hell of a lot easier to live a hell of a lot longer now than any time in the past, so not everything we did in the past is necessarily better!

Modern medicine has come along to push Darwinism out of the way as the deciding force in most of our life expectancies....except for the guy that looks down the barrel of his shotgun when it doesn't go off. He's doomed either way.

 

[Razorsharp244]

Remember that average life-span contains several things. Pre-historic man had tons of deaths in child births same as the "nature people" of today. But it's not uncommon that todays primitive people live past 80-90. Why do we assume that it was different 10000 years ago when they essentially live the same way?

Also eye-sight is a no-brainer. Our eyes adapt to watching flat surfaces for extended periods of time. Books, papers and screens. For a hunter/gatherer the eyes, like the rest of his muscles are constantly active, focusing at different distances all the time. I would not credit this to the diet however. The average primitive person should have better fitness and eye-sight than modern man with a modern life-style.

About the heart deseases, diabetes type etc i have read reports showing a huge difference. Primitive people just dont get it. They dont push their body to handle refined carbs and sugars that makes their insuline levels go nuts.

I'm by no means a hardcore paleo-dietist. I just exchanged my "worst third" of my food intake (soft drinks, candy, chocolate, butter, cheese, milk, white bread, pasta and some beer) into more paleo style food like lean meat, fat fish like salmon, nuts and fruits and fruit juices.

I love that food anyway so I dont make much of a sacrifice. I have smoked alomnds instead of candy. Jerky with my beer instead of potato chips.

Edit: It's expensive though. Pasta, potatoes, bread etc is the cheap part of the shopping bag. I consider it an investment in my own health.

 

[jdm61]

jdm, you sound surprised that a new disease would kill people... it's been pretty well proven that when people grow up with diseases present, they survive them, than if they meet them at adulthood. child immune systems are very adaptable, most adults loose that ability. I'd also like to know where you get your info, not that it is wrong, just very different to what I've been taught.

as for any discussion of true ancients, until we have more than a very small population sample to study, I've got the debate on ignore. there is not enough info to definitively say anything about pre-recorded history humans.

People adapt to diseases over time. But what we don't think about is that DISEASES adapt to their hosts. HIV is the most recent example. For those of us old enough to remember when it first hit hard, most people would be dead within a couple of years of exposure. Today, even without meds, it may take 5 years or more for any symptoms to even show up. The two major srains of HIV, the "western" strain and the strain common in Southeast Asia, have mutated to the point that you can be infected again by the Asian strain even if you already have the western variety and are undergoing treament. Patients infected with the western type who have been on medication have seen viral levles drop below the point of detections since the late 1990's. Such was the case with syphillis in the early 1500's. It is rumored that a man could be infected during a little extramarital dalliance and later infect and impregnate his wife. He would be dead by the time the child was born and she shortly thereafter. today, it generally takes around 30 years for syphilis to run its course if untreated. In the case of European contact with the New World, we brought back a form of the spirochete that causes syphilis that we had not been exposed to during it's 12,000+ years of mutation. Likewise, we took many strains of diseases that the American natives had not been exposed to for the same amount of time. What were common and survivable childhood diseases for Europeans couldbe fatal for people who had not developed a limited immunity to them. Think about the Black Death. It came roaring out of the steppes of Central Asia and wiped out 1/3 of the population of Europe. We still occasionally see things like this when some virulent fever like Ebola makes its way out of the jungle and mutates to the point where it can be passed to humans. There is a theory that MANY Indians actually died from a similar type of fever that struck along with the European diseases. It was much harder for people animals and diseases to make the long and arduous journey from Alaska to Tierra Del Fuego that it was for anything to cross the Eurasian land mass. A visitor from Peru to Mexico could bring all kinds of nasty stuff with him that the locals had not been exposed to for centuries if not millenia of mutation..

 

[gadgetgeek]

well, it makes sense for a bug to keep their victim alive long enough to spread. one of the reasons Ebola isn't as bad as it could be is it progresses so fast.
Given that Hanta virus is AFAIK native to north America and it is hemorrhagic, perhaps natives died from it on occasion just as a matter of course? I agree with you that in the recorded history times, there are many cases of populations succumbing to "new" diseases. Besides with bacteria and viruses it doesn't take millennia or even centuries, the Spanish flu of 1918 is not very different from the one we battle every year.
on this we agree