0

votes

Has anyone tried mimicking paleo food intake?

Commented on February 27, 2014
Created February 25, 2014 at 8:52 PM

For example one day eat nothing but a whole large chicken with the skin.

Next day all fruit. Next day all fruit. Day after all meat again. Maybe next day fasted.

47cbd166d262925037bc6f9a9265eb20

(55)

on February 27, 2014
at 11:04 AM

"Like story writing in the paleolithic period?"

Exactly.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 27, 2014
at 01:06 AM

And, yes chickens didn't exist during the early middle paleolithic, but animals of the genus "gallus" have been found from the early Pleistocene. The indian, asia, and indonesian jungle fowl, of the genus gallus, is the ancestor of the modern chicken (which is why chickens should have trees btw, makes them feel safe from predation). So related species, albiet less engineered to lay eggs, have been around for a long time.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 27, 2014
at 01:00 AM

Well true. Slow prey (tortoise, shellfish, lizards, bugs) don't need hunting, so they would have also been on the plate. But yes, prior to the spearhead, and early middle paleolithic trapping, there would have been some scavenging. Not that 300,000 years isnt on the evolutionary scale.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 27, 2014
at 12:33 AM

birds, sure. but no chickens.

And trapping became popular in the middle paleolithic -- but we were scavengers (like many omnivores). As tool development got better we became hunters -- but most of what I have read is that in the early and mid paleolithic the majority of our animal meat came from scavenging.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 26, 2014
at 02:39 PM

I think this is an issue that many of us forget, that it is a long period of time, with many variable environments (africa, asia, europe etc) - and both scarcity and abundance. In the process of migration there was a genetic adaption to allow more plant omega's to be metabolized in 50% of the modern population - so some must have stayed inland instead of the coast. All speculative, I admit though, but most of this stuff is to some degree. Whats paleo script writing? Like story writing in the paleolithic period?

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 26, 2014
at 02:29 PM

Not possible? What about on the coast where we spent most of our migration? Or when living near to a large herd? (brains are loaded with fat, even on lean animals). I do agree that fasting would have been much more common than how modern people practice paleo. But I don't think default all the time scarcity, makes sense to me either. People would seek out plentiful enviroments, up their tech, travel long distances to ensure they didn't have to worry about starvation. The scarcity would come when that location ran out, and they needed to find a better one.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 26, 2014
at 01:59 PM

It's somewhat paleo, though the real thing would have had longer than daily periods. For example clams 24/7 for months, then fish 24/7 for months, then venison for a few months. At all times a mixture of whatever vegetation was edible, from corms to cambium to chantarelles.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 26, 2014
at 01:51 PM

Somehow I am not allowed to upvote, but +1. In paleo times the norm would have been scarcity. As we look for ways to return to a paleo model this part goes missing. Paleo dieters emphasize fat-gorging, which is certainly a paleo behavior. But it would not have been a daily event. It was not possible to have plentiful daily fat until livestock and cooking vessels came in to being.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 26, 2014
at 12:47 PM

Birds were definately a big part of our diet. Lower in o-6 because they are eating bugs and worms, but trapping generally is the reliable way to get meat.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 26, 2014
at 12:43 PM

The later paleolithic was a period of great abundance, as evidenced by the shift to art, story telling, sculpture, and the mountains of bones and shells, some of which are still around. But parts were indeed very scarce. The fact we ate animal fats a lot is evidenced by our brains massive need for fats in mylenation (sat fats and omega-3s). We would not be as smart if our brains had not grown so on animal fats, nor would our digestive systems have shrunk. So its pretty clear we evolved with lots of fat.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 26, 2014
at 12:37 PM

As for fats, brains are full of fat. Fat would have been common on animals during the ice age. Coconuts on the coast, and shellfish, seals, and fatty fish (and larger land mammals). Loads of fat by the sea, where it is probably a lot of out migration occured. The innuit for example gourge on fats traditionally. They put seal blubber in everything. But there is one point perhaps in there, that the more common smaller game, inland, would be relatively lean next to a larger land mammal - except their organs, like brain. Because people used to eat nose to tail.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 26, 2014
at 12:32 PM

The paleolithic is a long period of time, than encompasses one ice age (all meat, or mostly meat, food scarce), and the migration out along the coast of africa (and into asia), both tropical climates where food is plentiful. But there would have been some periods where either the game ran out, or moved, or the plant life was unfamiliar, or less. Not a single day at a time, more like weeks. And generally speaking, this would be periodic, not all the time, revolving around migration (they would move, to get more food)

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 26, 2014
at 12:31 PM

Actually the archeological evidence suggests that most meat was caught via trapping not hunting. Big game was a huge boon, but not a staple. This makes perfect practical sense, if you set numerous traps for birds and small game, or set sea traps and nets, your bound to get something most of the time. Trappers modern experience is the same. If your near the coast you can collect shellfish as well, quite easily.

47cbd166d262925037bc6f9a9265eb20

(55)

on February 26, 2014
at 12:30 PM

You may make a good candidate for paleo scriptwriting(just one of my interests) but also consider that the paleolithic era was about 2.6 million years and that the populations may have lived in quite different territories with quite different habitats. So what you describe may represent only a small fraction of our paleolithic ancestors time and the notion in the questionmay also be true to an extent.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 26, 2014
at 12:21 PM

Over food plentiful locations? Quite probably. Resource scarcity generaly drives "uncivilized" behaviour, in primitive societies. Places with more food tend to be much more peaceful.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 26, 2014
at 11:16 AM

The French are avid small bird eaters - ortolans, alouettes, and palombes for instance. The song about the "gentille alouette" is about stripping feathers, pulling off heads, and cooking bluebirds. Before there were chickens plenty of birds were being eaten.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 26, 2014
at 11:08 AM

Where I was living, people moved distances of 100-200 miles seasonally to concentrations of foods. I expect that this is near a limiting radius for foot traveling hunter-gatherers, and was probably a cause of intertribal conflicts.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 26, 2014
at 02:14 AM

I don't know, put a human at a buffet and they eat much more than of only 1 food. I think we're hard-wired for seeking out a varied diet.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 26, 2014
at 01:46 AM

zip.... bang!

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 26, 2014
at 01:24 AM

I think the idea is that if a caveman killed an auroch, they were not also grilling up some asparagus and cauliflower puree -- The were eating one thing --- beef. However, on other days they were unable to kill prey, and thus ate various plants. On a third day they would not have had access to quality food so they more or less starved. -- Don't get me wrong, seems half baked. But I believe that's where he's coming from.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19463)

on February 25, 2014
at 10:10 PM

But there were roadrunners, meep meep!

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 25, 2014
at 09:44 PM

A whole chicken by yourself? Don't you have a tribe to share it with?

Frontpage book

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

7 Answers

0
Ee2fb37666db6f51d338f69d00d4fc3e

on February 26, 2014
at 11:04 AM

@Matt11

The paleolithic era was most likely a time of great scarcity for humans, most of the time. The way people eat today on the paleo diet has a mixture of macronutrients and is varied, or on a VLC diet is very high in fat. Which seems weird because there were no fatty animal sources of food in those days humans hunted for the most part.

If humans got to eat at all it would be a result. If they stumbled upon a bunch of fruit they would gorge themselves on fruit that day. If the next day all they found were some eggs and a few leafy green thats all they would be able to eat.

Wouldn't only taking in carbs on fruit days, only taking in protein on meat days etc allow someone to become fat adapted, yet like metabolic diets boost someones hormone profile, kind of like the anabolic diet, but with leto healthy foods?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 26, 2014
at 01:51 PM

Somehow I am not allowed to upvote, but +1. In paleo times the norm would have been scarcity. As we look for ways to return to a paleo model this part goes missing. Paleo dieters emphasize fat-gorging, which is certainly a paleo behavior. But it would not have been a daily event. It was not possible to have plentiful daily fat until livestock and cooking vessels came in to being.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 26, 2014
at 12:43 PM

The later paleolithic was a period of great abundance, as evidenced by the shift to art, story telling, sculpture, and the mountains of bones and shells, some of which are still around. But parts were indeed very scarce. The fact we ate animal fats a lot is evidenced by our brains massive need for fats in mylenation (sat fats and omega-3s). We would not be as smart if our brains had not grown so on animal fats, nor would our digestive systems have shrunk. So its pretty clear we evolved with lots of fat.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 26, 2014
at 12:31 PM

Actually the archeological evidence suggests that most meat was caught via trapping not hunting. Big game was a huge boon, but not a staple. This makes perfect practical sense, if you set numerous traps for birds and small game, or set sea traps and nets, your bound to get something most of the time. Trappers modern experience is the same. If your near the coast you can collect shellfish as well, quite easily.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 26, 2014
at 12:37 PM

As for fats, brains are full of fat. Fat would have been common on animals during the ice age. Coconuts on the coast, and shellfish, seals, and fatty fish (and larger land mammals). Loads of fat by the sea, where it is probably a lot of out migration occured. The innuit for example gourge on fats traditionally. They put seal blubber in everything. But there is one point perhaps in there, that the more common smaller game, inland, would be relatively lean next to a larger land mammal - except their organs, like brain. Because people used to eat nose to tail.

8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 26, 2014
at 12:32 PM

The paleolithic is a long period of time, than encompasses one ice age (all meat, or mostly meat, food scarce), and the migration out along the coast of africa (and into asia), both tropical climates where food is plentiful. But there would have been some periods where either the game ran out, or moved, or the plant life was unfamiliar, or less. Not a single day at a time, more like weeks. And generally speaking, this would be periodic, not all the time, revolving around migration (they would move, to get more food)

0
8b9c2dcd3dfc929a0428d3d6dac4918e

(70)

on February 26, 2014
at 01:37 AM

I am not sure one food by itself is accurate.

Consider a tribe of 20-100. All the capable (age 5+) members would do something productive each day, and apart from those cooking, attending babies, making tools, and that means getting food. The foragers would return each day with whatever local foods were available, be it tubers, non-starchy greens, berries, eggs, nuts, or shellfish.

The other high volume food would be trapping, both by sea (nets and traps) and in the bush (birds and small mammals). And then the occasional big mammal hunt, and some sporadic spear fishing etc, would add fish and ruminant meat. So what have you got, you have 20-100 people that need to eat, the assortment of foods that have been brought back.

It would have to be divided, with those who were most successful getting prized parts like liver, heart or limbs. So what you would end up with is some level of fasting here and there, and a mixture of fruit, nuts, eggs, tubers, greens, small birds, small mammals, fish, shellfish, and large mammal meat - not a single food type, all these various collections, split across the large numbers of people, resulting in a varied mix of food types at each meal.

Of course during the ice age there would have been more meat (more fasting), and in the frequent tropical locations during migration, it would have been more coconut, fruit, shellfish, and fish (less fasting, because they are plentiful locations)

Sure, if you found a single, very plentiful food source, you might eat that as a majority of your diet for a while, which is why there are mountains of shells from the paleolithic era in a few places on the coast in europe. But if one food is easy to get, then your in luxury zone, and can afford to spend some time getting some variety in (in the shellfish example, you might throw in some big game hunting, or look for berries, or spear some fish).

47cbd166d262925037bc6f9a9265eb20

(55)

on February 26, 2014
at 12:30 PM

You may make a good candidate for paleo scriptwriting(just one of my interests) but also consider that the paleolithic era was about 2.6 million years and that the populations may have lived in quite different territories with quite different habitats. So what you describe may represent only a small fraction of our paleolithic ancestors time and the notion in the questionmay also be true to an extent.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 26, 2014
at 11:08 AM

Where I was living, people moved distances of 100-200 miles seasonally to concentrations of foods. I expect that this is near a limiting radius for foot traveling hunter-gatherers, and was probably a cause of intertribal conflicts.

0
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 26, 2014
at 01:09 AM

How is that pattern of eating "paleolithic"?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 26, 2014
at 01:59 PM

It's somewhat paleo, though the real thing would have had longer than daily periods. For example clams 24/7 for months, then fish 24/7 for months, then venison for a few months. At all times a mixture of whatever vegetation was edible, from corms to cambium to chantarelles.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 26, 2014
at 01:24 AM

I think the idea is that if a caveman killed an auroch, they were not also grilling up some asparagus and cauliflower puree -- The were eating one thing --- beef. However, on other days they were unable to kill prey, and thus ate various plants. On a third day they would not have had access to quality food so they more or less starved. -- Don't get me wrong, seems half baked. But I believe that's where he's coming from.

0
Ee2fb37666db6f51d338f69d00d4fc3e

on February 26, 2014
at 12:27 AM

I ask because I know someone doing the gracie diet and he eats fruits in one sitting, meat in another etc. I wondered if anyone had varied food intake to certain groups per day.

0
Medium avatar

on February 26, 2014
at 12:20 AM

I haven't tried it, but it might be an interesting experiment... just to go back to your roots, so to speak. After all, people certainly didn't dive into jars of almond butter and eat them by the spoonful. They had to forage for them, a few at a time.

0
Medium avatar

(238)

on February 25, 2014
at 10:19 PM

Does pizza and beer in one day count? If so I did that for years at a time, only put on 70lbs or so - it does work for those that need to add body fat.

0
3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 25, 2014
at 09:46 PM

There were no chickens in the paleolithic....

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19463)

on February 25, 2014
at 10:10 PM

But there were roadrunners, meep meep!

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 26, 2014
at 11:16 AM

The French are avid small bird eaters - ortolans, alouettes, and palombes for instance. The song about the "gentille alouette" is about stripping feathers, pulling off heads, and cooking bluebirds. Before there were chickens plenty of birds were being eaten.

Answer Question


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