6

votes

Anglo-saxon diet

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created June 12, 2012 at 4:03 PM

This question is directed more for the white folks on this forum.

have you ever tried an anglo-saxon somewhere around the dark ages type of diet? There are a few reasons why I think it may be beneficial for me(my main problem is skin health.)

Firstly, I believe there is merit to ancestral eating. The foods in the Anglo-dark-age diet would fall in line with my personal food cravings

Secondly, this would be about as far as I could go back in terms of a traditional "anglo-saxon diet" even here the records are a little sketchy for some odd reason, but we have a general gist of the diet.

and thirdly i think that a lot of our deep rooted psychology came from around this period, more so than paleo times. This is just speculation and I won't dive much into it because it's not the point of my question.

So the diet, for my particular Saxon heritage would be heavy on oats, honey, rye and particularly BARLEY. Minimal animal foods mostly in the form of seafood and eggs(I'm not doing the Lord's diet here). Dairy, vegetables mainly leak. and the list of fruits apples, pears, plums, cherries, blackberries, raspberries, strawberries and grapes

Do you guys think this diet is worth embarking on? I felt hypocaloric on paleo personally.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21420)

on June 18, 2012
at 04:25 AM

Thhq - coffee and chocolate were not made available to the lower class for several decades. Potatoes, sugar, tomatoes, and even livestock (turkeys) were the first "New World" additions to the European lower castes/serfs, because unlike coffee or chocolate, they were either easily exportable, or grew very well in the climate.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 13, 2012
at 02:08 AM

They were worlds apart in some ways, but still subject to the same parasites, sanitation problems and high infant mortality. They were more sedentary having better roofs over their heads, so wouldn't have had as much problem living in harsher environments. And they had cooking vessels. Even if they were subject to the whims of lords, they had some protection out of this that paleo nomadic tribes would not have had.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21420)

on June 13, 2012
at 12:37 AM

Greensun, daily beer from the dark ages was usually lower than 3% alc, basically strong enough to kill bacteria, but low enough to drink throughout the day. For "small beer" made at home, the housewives normally made it. For the special occasion beers (barleywines, distilled spirits), that was the realm of Abbey brewers (Monks) - they were the only ones who could afford enough grain to make strong beer and liquor.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 11:24 PM

Maybe it was the coffee.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 11:23 PM

In one of the Thomas Hardy novels the rustics treat beer as a food. Making alcohol was one way grains like barley and wheat were preserved before the age of grain silos. They don't make very high quality food, but they do supply calories. And as already said they made the water fit to drink too.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on June 12, 2012
at 10:57 PM

Hunter-gatherers were able to pick up and move, foraging and hunting at will, without having to pay for goods or pay to hunt on a lord's property (if they were allowed at all), or be a servant or someone who was unable to move to a better location. The two living situations are worlds apart.

E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

(476)

on June 12, 2012
at 09:39 PM

Does beer have hydration properties? I thought it actually dehydrated you like drinking seawater or something..

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on June 12, 2012
at 09:27 PM

I'm not sure that answers my question.

E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

(476)

on June 12, 2012
at 09:13 PM

Thanks i will incorporate this info

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on June 12, 2012
at 08:58 PM

A+ .

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 07:47 PM

Check out this video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrsGpPA5TBA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 07:44 PM

Steeleye Span has a good song along those lines. King Henry I believe.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 07:41 PM

It looks like both barley grass juice and barley water have benefits for skin health.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 07:39 PM

One problem with the SAD diet is that it was developed for Standard Americans doing manual labor all day. Not Modern Americans blogging all day. If that's what you do, and are otherwise bone idle, then a Grain free diet is the perfect MAD diet for you.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 07:29 PM

@nemesis then one would expect that 50,000 years earlier they weren't doing any better than 500 years ago. Diet has little to do with health in either scenario. If eating barley keeps you from starving you eat barley.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 07:06 PM

That's the problem VB. They were begging to be eaten. BUT I WUSSED OUT!!!

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:52 PM

Roth, I just don't see natural grains w/ fruit and honey being "kind of" like McDonalds or Hot Pockets. I think your viewpoint has to be rather twisted to make that leap. Most modern cultures ate this kind of diet, and THEN ran into problems when they adopted the modern SAD.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:52 PM

If you feel hypocaloric maybe you are. Lot's of people learning to eat paleo start off by not eating enough fat (or tubers if no metabolism problems) to sub for the removed grains.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:50 PM

I'm curious. Why did you choose to look at a diet based on early middle ages Anglo-Saxon diets of peasants? Nobles for instance are estimated to have eaten @ 1 lb per day of fish or meat in that time. Why not the nobles diet? Why the middle ages rather than Roman times, or Paleolithic northern European diets? Why not Victorian English diets? What led to the decision that that particular group of centuries was the best possible diet?

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:46 PM

Karen, he was responding to the digs against pasteurization, meaning the milk would be raw.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:31 PM

Why on earth do you think that diet would "obviously be raw"? Paleo people had good control of fire, much less people living in the early middle ages.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:27 PM

@Greensun - they are not the same as they used to be.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:26 PM

@Thhq - OH NO - DON'T KILL THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3327924660b1e2f8f8fc4ca27fedf2b2

(2919)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:22 PM

Hence why I said "kind of" and not "your diet is equivalent to SAD." Please don't presume so much. A diet where the primary focus is on grains and sugars is probably not the best thing for anyone and definitely not for someone with skin issues (which are exacerbated by grains and sugar.) As I said in my 2nd reply to Greensun, he/she is free to do this diet if that's what he/she wants.

E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

(476)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:21 PM

So in your opinion the composition of todays meats is less different from the ancestral ones, than the grains? From what I've read vegetables are vastly different almost unrecognizably so..

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:05 PM

Are you suggesting that grains then were less detrimental than grains today?

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:40 PM

I think they tended to salt their meats as well, along with the veg pickling.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:39 PM

Elk haunch and roasted swans! BRING ME MEAT!

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:37 PM

Ditto what AC said. If they weren't dying from viral or bacterial infections, they were living painfully short lives due to nutritional deficiencies. Yeah, sounds awesome.

E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

(476)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:23 PM

so what are you suggesting in terms of oat and barley.

E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

(476)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:21 PM

thanks i found that helpful

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:17 PM

The SAD acronym seems to be losing all meaning. I don't see McDonalds or Hot Pockets anywhere on his food list. Eating any kind of grains somehow equals SAD? You have been drinking too much Paleo kool-aid.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:05 PM

This morning out walking I came across a deer and two tiny fawns. Mother deer ran away. The fawns laid down in front of me, and I had to step over them to continue my walk. If I had been a coyote or a real Paleo they would have been breakfast.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 12, 2012
at 05:03 PM

Yeah, I participated in a dig of a Dark Ages Swedish farm and the people were not doing well at all.

90f66d30d977b07694403b469b3f85c5

on June 12, 2012
at 05:00 PM

Average life expectancy gets skewed by things like infant mortality, and the fact that you could die if you broke your leg, etc. It's not a good indicator of whether the diet people ate back then is good or bad. All I'm saying is that there it's pretty well documented that people had some diet-related health problems in the dark ages... bad teeth, bad skin, scurvy, rickets. There's no evidence of these in the paleolithic fossils.

E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

(476)

on June 12, 2012
at 04:42 PM

are you assuming that has to do with diet? their average life expectancy was like 40 as opposed to nearly 70 on a SAD diet with medical interventions. Should we actually assume that the diet i just proposed above is 30 years of life worse than a SAD diet?

3327924660b1e2f8f8fc4ca27fedf2b2

(2919)

on June 12, 2012
at 04:39 PM

If you think this diet is healthy, by all means go for it.

E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

(476)

on June 12, 2012
at 04:30 PM

No one said anytrhing about that. It would obviously be raw if we were to emulate the diet.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on June 12, 2012
at 04:08 PM

...my anglo ancestors thrived on G&Ts as well.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on June 12, 2012
at 04:06 PM

Fantastic question!

  • E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

    asked by

    (476)
  • Views
    6.4K
  • Last Activity
    1257D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

14 Answers

15
90f66d30d977b07694403b469b3f85c5

on June 12, 2012
at 04:32 PM

People in the dark ages were not exactly the picture of health.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 12, 2012
at 05:03 PM

Yeah, I participated in a dig of a Dark Ages Swedish farm and the people were not doing well at all.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 07:29 PM

@nemesis then one would expect that 50,000 years earlier they weren't doing any better than 500 years ago. Diet has little to do with health in either scenario. If eating barley keeps you from starving you eat barley.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on June 12, 2012
at 10:57 PM

Hunter-gatherers were able to pick up and move, foraging and hunting at will, without having to pay for goods or pay to hunt on a lord's property (if they were allowed at all), or be a servant or someone who was unable to move to a better location. The two living situations are worlds apart.

90f66d30d977b07694403b469b3f85c5

on June 12, 2012
at 05:00 PM

Average life expectancy gets skewed by things like infant mortality, and the fact that you could die if you broke your leg, etc. It's not a good indicator of whether the diet people ate back then is good or bad. All I'm saying is that there it's pretty well documented that people had some diet-related health problems in the dark ages... bad teeth, bad skin, scurvy, rickets. There's no evidence of these in the paleolithic fossils.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:37 PM

Ditto what AC said. If they weren't dying from viral or bacterial infections, they were living painfully short lives due to nutritional deficiencies. Yeah, sounds awesome.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 13, 2012
at 02:08 AM

They were worlds apart in some ways, but still subject to the same parasites, sanitation problems and high infant mortality. They were more sedentary having better roofs over their heads, so wouldn't have had as much problem living in harsher environments. And they had cooking vessels. Even if they were subject to the whims of lords, they had some protection out of this that paleo nomadic tribes would not have had.

E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

(476)

on June 12, 2012
at 04:42 PM

are you assuming that has to do with diet? their average life expectancy was like 40 as opposed to nearly 70 on a SAD diet with medical interventions. Should we actually assume that the diet i just proposed above is 30 years of life worse than a SAD diet?

8
246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21420)

on June 12, 2012
at 08:48 PM

I vaguely remember a show about teeth that looked into the diet habits from the Dark Ages until the Renaissance period and they were looking at bone density and teeth (in fact, it may have been the BBC show "Big Bang" (not to be confused with the US Sitcom).

Apparently, even though the folks from the dark ages had considerably less nutrition, they had surprisingly healthier teeth and bones.

On the flip side, post 1500 Europe the people all of a sudden (amongst all classes) started to develop serious cavities, reduced bone density, etc...

What food was introduced to Europe around that time? [Churchlady Voice] Could it be... Sugar? [/Churchlady Voice]

So I can't really tell you what you should eat, but I can tell you, from a Anglo-European point of view, that sugar wasn't really on the menu until the renaissance, nor were potatoes, chilies, or tomatoes.

Cultures changed over time depending on who was invading that week. Dig sites of Southern Pictish show lots of small critter bones and mostly land animals, Northern Picts ate seal, and larger land critters, with easily harvested shellfish. The Romans brought barley and wheat, as well as most modern veggies that are staples today. After the Saxons came (about 1,000 years ago), considerably more fish/shellfish was consumed (possibly due to improved fishing technology). Beech and Walnuts were harvested and eaten in some considerable amounts according to some prehistory dig refuse piles (along with small bones). Of course there is the oft-quoted Benjamin Disraeli who mentioned that the Scots ate horse food (oats), so at least by the Victorian era, Oats weren't really considered a food unless you lived north of York.

Approaching Ancestral dieting in prehistory Britain I would look to land critters, copious bitter greens, European nuts (Walnuts, Chestnuts - even almonds if you consider Roman influence), seafood (especially shellfish and freshwater), and rhizome tubers such as ginger, rutabaga, and turnips. I would avoid almost all "new world" foods such as nightshades, meaning no avocado, no chiles, no potatoes, etc...

But then again, that's only if you choose to eat this way. It might be a good base to start from, but there are lots of foods that I consider edible on Paleo that are excluded if you choose to eat this way.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on June 12, 2012
at 08:58 PM

A+ .

E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

(476)

on June 12, 2012
at 09:13 PM

Thanks i will incorporate this info

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 11:24 PM

Maybe it was the coffee.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21420)

on June 18, 2012
at 04:25 AM

Thhq - coffee and chocolate were not made available to the lower class for several decades. Potatoes, sugar, tomatoes, and even livestock (turkeys) were the first "New World" additions to the European lower castes/serfs, because unlike coffee or chocolate, they were either easily exportable, or grew very well in the climate.

7
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 12, 2012
at 05:08 PM

Sounds a bit like the Spartan Diet http://thespartandiet.blogspot.com/

But I would imagine there would be a bit of diversity with diet in this era between classes. I'm mainly familiar with Scandinavia in this era, but there the different classes ate quite differently. The peasants had terrible bones and teeth. They ate mainly rye and turnips and were often forbidden by local nobility from hunting. The upper classes had a more animal-rich diet, but animal products during this era were restricted not just by scarcity, but by church fasting rules, which prohibited all animal products except some fish and shellfish during fast periods that took up as much as half the year. At one point I was involved in a type of Christianity that still does these fasts and I did not do well on them at all. My body doesn't handle lots of fiber very well and low-fat seems to trigger depression for me. But my ancestors were supposedly nobility, so maybe I need a more noble diet :P

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:39 PM

Elk haunch and roasted swans! BRING ME MEAT!

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 07:44 PM

Steeleye Span has a good song along those lines. King Henry I believe.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 07:47 PM

Check out this video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrsGpPA5TBA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

7
3327924660b1e2f8f8fc4ca27fedf2b2

(2919)

on June 12, 2012
at 04:24 PM

Sounds kind of like a SAD diet except you replaced wheat with other grains and white sugar with other sugars (albeit more natural sugars.)

And no I don't think too many people have attempted an Anglo-Saxon diet. Not on purpose anyway. I can see a lot of issues arising from this diet, especially since it's mostly carbohydrates and lacking in both protein and fat. Pasteurized dairy is a frankenfood and for someone concerned with their health, processed dairy shouldn't even be on their menu.

3327924660b1e2f8f8fc4ca27fedf2b2

(2919)

on June 12, 2012
at 04:39 PM

If you think this diet is healthy, by all means go for it.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:31 PM

Why on earth do you think that diet would "obviously be raw"? Paleo people had good control of fire, much less people living in the early middle ages.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:17 PM

The SAD acronym seems to be losing all meaning. I don't see McDonalds or Hot Pockets anywhere on his food list. Eating any kind of grains somehow equals SAD? You have been drinking too much Paleo kool-aid.

3327924660b1e2f8f8fc4ca27fedf2b2

(2919)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:22 PM

Hence why I said "kind of" and not "your diet is equivalent to SAD." Please don't presume so much. A diet where the primary focus is on grains and sugars is probably not the best thing for anyone and definitely not for someone with skin issues (which are exacerbated by grains and sugar.) As I said in my 2nd reply to Greensun, he/she is free to do this diet if that's what he/she wants.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:46 PM

Karen, he was responding to the digs against pasteurization, meaning the milk would be raw.

E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

(476)

on June 12, 2012
at 04:30 PM

No one said anytrhing about that. It would obviously be raw if we were to emulate the diet.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:52 PM

Roth, I just don't see natural grains w/ fruit and honey being "kind of" like McDonalds or Hot Pockets. I think your viewpoint has to be rather twisted to make that leap. Most modern cultures ate this kind of diet, and THEN ran into problems when they adopted the modern SAD.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 07:39 PM

One problem with the SAD diet is that it was developed for Standard Americans doing manual labor all day. Not Modern Americans blogging all day. If that's what you do, and are otherwise bone idle, then a Grain free diet is the perfect MAD diet for you.

6
F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on June 12, 2012
at 04:54 PM

Just so you know - oats NOW and oats THEN are two completely different things, in terms of their cultivation and selection. They changed a lot since Neolythic times. Same goes for barley.

Don't forget to hunt for wild game and deer. Also make sure to eat wild goats and research as much as possible about fauna during those times. Your honey should be raw and from wild bees.

Also, make sure to eat WILD pears and WILD plums, not the cultivated ones.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING: OATS USED TO BE GLUTEN FREE, NOW THEY ARE CROSS-CONTAMINATED BY GLUTEN. BARLEY BACK THEN HAD LESS GLUTEN THAN NOW. CAN YOU FIND WILD BARLEY???

Good luck.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:05 PM

This morning out walking I came across a deer and two tiny fawns. Mother deer ran away. The fawns laid down in front of me, and I had to step over them to continue my walk. If I had been a coyote or a real Paleo they would have been breakfast.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:27 PM

@Greensun - they are not the same as they used to be.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:26 PM

@Thhq - OH NO - DON'T KILL THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

(476)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:23 PM

so what are you suggesting in terms of oat and barley.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:05 PM

Are you suggesting that grains then were less detrimental than grains today?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 07:06 PM

That's the problem VB. They were begging to be eaten. BUT I WUSSED OUT!!!

5
5e63e3fa78e998736106a4a5b9aef58c

on June 12, 2012
at 08:13 PM

If you're going to do this, and do it authentically, you'll also need to account for seasonal availability of foods. Eggs would have been rare during the winter, as would fresh milk products. Fresh fruit would only have been available in-season; during the rest of the year your ancestors would have eaten it dried. And those fruits would not have been like the hybridized ones you find in the supermarket.

Your ancestors' wild strawberries were tiny and not so sweet as modern hybrids. Apples and grapes were small and sour--and used to make cider and wine, not for eating.

Oh, and you'll probably get a lot of your barley ration as beer, because that was how water was rendered fit to drink.

Look, if the diet you've outlined above meets all your personal food cravings, go for it. Give it a try. It's still not going to be what your ancestors ate, but as an n=1? Why not.

But I can't help but look at my own ancestry, which is heavily Northern European. And while my ancestors may have subsisted on barley, oats, and meager rations of animal fat and protein, my aim is to do far more than merely subsist--I want to thrive. I want to be a healthy, happy human animal until I one day drop dead. And this particular animal wants lots of beef, bison, duck, and venison in the colder moths, lots of fish and green veg in the warmer months, fruit in season, eggs all year round, the occasional root or tuber--and almost no grains. Whatever grains my ancestors ate no longer exist--they've been hybridized and modified into extinction--and the ones that are now available do terrible things to my body.

If you would rather not eat red meat, you don't have to. There's no reason you can't stick to fish, eggs, and small amounts of dairy. Lots of green veg and some fruit? Fine. But keep in mind that the amount of oats and barley your ancestors ate from necessity was not optimal for their health. If they'd had the option of eating more meat and fat, you bet they would have.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21420)

on June 13, 2012
at 12:37 AM

Greensun, daily beer from the dark ages was usually lower than 3% alc, basically strong enough to kill bacteria, but low enough to drink throughout the day. For "small beer" made at home, the housewives normally made it. For the special occasion beers (barleywines, distilled spirits), that was the realm of Abbey brewers (Monks) - they were the only ones who could afford enough grain to make strong beer and liquor.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 11:23 PM

In one of the Thomas Hardy novels the rustics treat beer as a food. Making alcohol was one way grains like barley and wheat were preserved before the age of grain silos. They don't make very high quality food, but they do supply calories. And as already said they made the water fit to drink too.

E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

(476)

on June 12, 2012
at 09:39 PM

Does beer have hydration properties? I thought it actually dehydrated you like drinking seawater or something..

4
Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:11 PM

It's hard to imagine that eating barley would improve your skin. But eating the diet of more immediate ancestors makes a lot of sense compared to emulating the diet of imaginary ancestors from 50,000 years ago. Adaptation has occurred. I do well on my Scandinavian ancestors white food diet: lots of dairy and fish, minimal vegetables and fruit.

4
Eea6a68f5a7190d13c60e1c72417a581

(1376)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:11 PM

Others have made some good points. I wanted to add that fermentation was a primary method of food preservation. The diet would feature sauerkraut and other pickled veg, cured meats and cheeses, clabbered milk, and much of the barley would be fermented into beer. Also prominent would be various wild herbs and greens and root veg such as turnips, rootabagas, salsify and beets but potatoes had not been introduced from South America yet. But the amount of meat one ate in Ye Olden Times would be dependent on one's social status.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:40 PM

I think they tended to salt their meats as well, along with the veg pickling.

E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

(476)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:21 PM

thanks i found that helpful

4
7caec21ad66b572d9afcb1e24f7297aa

on June 12, 2012
at 04:29 PM

I think you should try it, and report back your results.

30 days, 3 months, 6 months, etc. I'd love to hear how you fare.

3
7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on June 12, 2012
at 05:12 PM

As long as you cut out the modern garbage food then the diet should be okay and worth experimenting with.

You just have to make sure the oats, rye, and barly don???t push out too many other nutrient dense foods (eating eggs every day will help quite a bit.) You might feel better though with a little more protein or fat; you just have to experiment and see what works best for you.

2
5759bd89db5f73cabe0a6e8f8e6e1cb9

(1467)

on June 12, 2012
at 08:15 PM

Blockquote

This question is directed more for the white folks on this forum

Blockquote

Really? Surely you could have got your answers without alienating people of other races.

0
A6abd3780d495c822d0a45c6fc2d184c

on February 07, 2013
at 09:24 AM

A little late to the party here...my ancestry is similar, northern European. Why pick a diet that is focused on a tiny slice of time? 1000 years ago... Anglo Saxon wasn't a thing until the Anglo's Saxon's and Jutes "invaded England". If you are of Germanic origin... or Celtic, for that matter you have roughly 40,000 years of a general diet of meat and fish... with green veggies thrown in. Before that your ancestors (and mine) where in Africa eating roughly the same diet... just on the plains of that continent...for 1-2 million years. Farming and milk consumption didn't begin for you and I until about 8,000 years ago. So a Medieval diet is a small and somewhat poor sampling of good (grass fed meats, cold water fish) and increasingly bad foods (more and more grains). I do think there is something to focusing in on some good diet staples that your ancestors may have relied on for a long time. My DNA puts me in modern day Holland about 1000 years ago.. lots and lots of fish. I know now that I do very, very well with copious fish and shellfish..there may be a little bit of truth to your theory.

0
E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

on June 12, 2012
at 09:18 PM

One of the things that caused this line of thought regarding ancestral dieting, is how I've noticed my skin responding poorly to bananas. A food that certainly wouldn't be part of my ancestral diet. I do not think it is only the GI or sugar content as I've experimented with other moderately sweet fruits without the same skin sequelae...

0
321631b2e3931f601d2e9b1918b18ab4

on June 12, 2012
at 06:01 PM

ancestral doesn't equal evolution. While most of the diet sounds raw and clean, I can't get past the grains, especially since grains today are all GMO (unless you go into the wild and gather your own), and no longer resemble those of even 50 years ago, and what about red meat? not everybody lived near the sea and ate only seafood...

I'm not a total grain hater, but they are not as good as fruits and veggies, so why add them?

E8c2167284f0cdd16a12bea2741975b4

(476)

on June 12, 2012
at 06:21 PM

So in your opinion the composition of todays meats is less different from the ancestral ones, than the grains? From what I've read vegetables are vastly different almost unrecognizably so..

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!