RandyBarnes
A Disturbance in the Force
Much thanks, ma'am. Review on Amazon was as R.B.
Regards,
Randy
Regards,
Randy
Laura said:Well, it's just that I don't WANT as much fat right now. I'll play around with it, add some digestive stuff, and see if it is some lack of digestive juices issue.
Laura said:Just thought I would note that I notice a little fat sensitivity in myself lately. Not much, just a bit, and I wonder if that is because of the lengthening of the days/light? Are we programmed to need less fat in spring and summer?
Laura said:Oh boy, that was pretty nastily done. All I can say is from our experience here: fiber and carbs are BAD NEWS. We've had the medical conditions that were corrected by eliminating both to prove it.
3D Student said:I'm a little sensitive to both ghee and butter, but I actually seem to do better with butter! Weird since I would think butter's higher casein would give more of an effect.
I was thinking about eating a larger breakfast after reading some of the Jack Kruse thread. Eating a big breakfast and then not being hungry until dinner would be nice. I think the key was, if you're hungry throughout the day, then eat more protein and fat. Still reading that info, though.
[/quote]dugdeep said:Well it seems the Paleo-clique, who are firmly entrenched in the "safe starches" idea, have set out to 'debunk' Nora Gedgaudas' Paleo Summit talk. This is written by Melissa McEwan on her blog Hunt Gather Love - _http://huntgatherlove.com/content/paleolithic-poop-and-carbs
[quote author=MM]
...So when I hear more info about coprolites, my ears perk up, particularly if it's totally outside the realm of anything I've ever heard. In Nora's presentation she cites a paper that she says shows that a wide-ranging sample of paleolithic coprolites shows that they weren't eating any plants. What?
So I tracked down this paper. Turns out it's not a paper, it's an article in a magazine, though I admit that Scientific American is definitely a quality magazine.
So your homework assignment for the night is to read the "paper" and figure out where it says any of what Nora says at all.
Spoiler: it doesn't say any of those things at all. Nope, none. Hilariously, a lot of the article is in fact devoted to the Pecos basin hunter-gatherers I've written about, but they didn't live in the Paleolithic and they ate a massive amount of various plants....
Gedgaudas' Talk said:...what these researchers did was they got a variety of human coprolites from a variety of locations. And of course, as many people know, coprolites are fossilized human feces, which is always fun. And anyway, what they were doing is analyzing these things to figure out what people were eating.
And what was really fascinating was they found this whole range of coprolites from 50,000 to 300,000 years old where there was no evidence of plant fiber in them whatsoever. So, weʼre obviously well-equipped for making use of meat and fat in a fairly exclusive way...
Megan said:The last comment I will make is that it is important to be cautious even of the "good" sources of information that we use. While I do regard the criticisms discussed here that were directed at Nora Gedgaudas (after her Paleo Summit talk) as nit-picking, they prompted me to examine some of my assumptions. What was "paleolithic diet?" How cold was it earlier in this last glacial period? It should be obvious that these kinds of questions do not have a single answer, and yet our simplification-prone minds can easily produce fantasy-based generalizations if we don't reign them in. The forum can either catch these errors or amplify them. It's not foolproof.
I am doing a bit of my own research on the paleolithic period. Currently I have the heavily-cited 1974 Scientific American article THE COPROLITES OF MAN to read. It has clearly become "accepted fact" and I would like examine it more closely. I am interested in hearing what other are learning about this period as well.
Psyche said:dugdeep said:Here's a link to the paper MM says is the one Nora referenced. I haven't looked at it yet - _http://www.scribd.com/doc/83243120/Coprolites-of-Man
[Edit: There are lots of links in the original blog post not shown in this post]
Funny, because I stumble upon that blog post earlier this morning and decided to have a look. The reference that Nora gives is from those authors, but 1975. Melissa gives a paper from 1974 which sums up the science of coprolites so to speak. So I went and had a look at the listings of publications from 1975 and looking around found other articles where they quoted Bryant and Williams-Dean and the studies of coprolites in general. It seems to me that Melissa is splitting hairs.
The Scientific American article does say that,
"He did not find plant materials of any specimens [...] So far we have found no bone and plant remains [...]".
It refers to specimens from a specific region and from 300,000 to 50,000/70,000 years old which is the point that Nora was making in her book. Other publications point to the discovery of millet traces, but from 12,000 years ago.
Other specimens have pollen from flowers and seeds and even cactus traces, but the date of those that were really old does point to a lack of any plant remains.
She is splitting hairs, or so it seems to me.
I checked other of Nora's references from the book and it seems to me she is reasonable and gives plenty of information that can be traced.
ADDED: Yeah, it can be argued that she should give a reference to a study that is all about human coprolites from 300,000 or 70,000 years ago which argues of the non-existence of plant material residues. Other old samples had pollen on them, suggesting that they might have eaten flowers. That is hardly a rich fiber diet...
It seems to me that is simply nitpicking if you see the whole picture of what they mostly found:
"Preliminary analysis has identified grains of sand, which are almost inevitably ingested at the seashore, flecks of charcoal, which indicate the use of fire in the preparation of food, and fragments of mollusk shell, which point to one food resource that may have been exploited by the inhabitants."
Psalehesost said:I've begun - today - experimenting with Kruse's breakfast suggestions. This means: 1. Dragging myself out of bed much more quickly when not on a schedule. 2. Eating perhaps three times what has been the usual meal size for some time now.
It knocked out my hunger until lunch - wasn't really hungry then either, but could eat more, and had another good-sized meal. And a smaller dinner. (the huge breakfast also immediately cured the present round of constipation)
In hindsight, it used to be - on this diet - that as my meal sizes gradually shrank, I began snacking more and more and having more and more small meals. So this is an experiment in a sudden reversal of both trends.
Goemon_ said:As I have read the Dr Kruse thing, I'm a little lost.
I was trying much of the time to follow the 0,8g of protein / kg of body weight thing. That means 52 grams per day for my 65 kg.
I had translate that by 3 meals of 17/18g with more fat at breakfast than at dinner.
So, I am not realy ready to jump to a 50 g breakfast.
This morning I have made it 25 g (the maximum recommanded by Naura Gedgaudas) and I will try to stay at 52 grams a day for the moment.