
Palaeolithic diet: Should we all eat like cavepeople? - tokenadult
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140617-should-we-all-eat-like-cavemen
======
latch
The bar is low enough that simply getting people to eat less processed foods
is a win. We can debate how the liver breaks down sugar, or whether milk
should be avoided, but that seems inconsequential when people are eating
"hamburgers" where the buns are made from two deep fried chicken breasts.

That said, virtually every major health agency recommends a diet where
carbohydrates (from vegetables, fruits and grains) represent the majority of
calories. For an individual, under the guidance of a doctor, it can make sense
to alter this. For everyone else, just follow the guidelines.

~~~
bluedevil2k
_eating "hamburgers" where the buns are made from two deep fried chicken
breasts_

You're referring to KFC's Double Down I assume, but if you look at it's
nutrition facts (1) it's not as bad as you think, especially for a
Paleo/Atkins based diet. And it's delicious.

1 - [http://fast-food-nutrition.findthebest.com/l/1377/KFC-
Origin...](http://fast-food-nutrition.findthebest.com/l/1377/KFC-Original-
Recipe-Double-Down)

~~~
scottjad
It is very nutrient poor and it is very calorically dense, almost as dense as
bread.

    
    
      | food (100g prepared) | cals |
      |----------------------+------|
      | KFC double down      |  224 |
      | whole wheat bread    |  259 |
      | brown rice           |  110 |
      | corn                 |   86 |
      | carrots              |   41 |
      | cantaloupe           |   34 |
    

But I guess if you love saturated fat and get your nutrition advice from
bloggers and journalists it's awesome!

~~~
bluedevil2k
You're eating it for the protein (52g) and the taste. Not fair to compare a
chicken breast to carrots in terms of nutrients. And the saturated fat isn't a
big deal, that's the fuel your body uses when you're on the keto-diet, as I
learned from my own switch to a keto-diet 4 years ago.

~~~
erkkie
How about the trans fats?

edit: just realized there's supposedly no trans fats in KFC food. This is
surprising and interesting. (apparently trans-fat free since 2007
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KFC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KFC))

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
N-6 fatty acid over consumption is still a huge problem, trans or not.
Anything cooked in vegetable oils is bad for you. I believe the rise in
vegetable oil (soy, corn, sunflower, canola, peanut) consumption is a key
factor in the obesity epidemic. It has the effect of lowering metabolism and
increasing inflammation.

~~~
erkkie
Yes, there's lots of recent research showing the importance of managing n3/n6
ratios, typical western diets being up to 15:1 6/3 whereas ideal would be
purpoted to be more closer to 1:1

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
The ratio is not nearly as important as keeping PUFA intake as low as
possible. Fish oil is just as bad an idea as canola oil. There is a pretty
clear body of literature linking PUFA of both kinds to cancer.

~~~
erkkie
Which means eat real food not supplement to manage ratios?

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
Many "real foods" are rich sources of PUFAs.

------
akavel
Thanks, nice to read an article about food that is weighed and quotes some
scientific studies, especially seeing there the following phrase: _" a long-
term randomised controlled trial"_ !

The tl;dr seems to be:

 _" What happened? Both groups lost weight, but after six months the women on
the Palaeolithic diet had lost more, and their waists now measured less than
those on the Nordic diet. It seemed as though this diet was better, but then
things changed. After two years there was no difference in weight between the
two groups. The only difference was in levels of the harmful blood fats,
triglycerides, but even then they were at what would be considered safe,
normal levels in the people on the Nordic diet too. Both groups found the
diets difficult to manage and most people didn’t achieve the targets of eating
the right amounts of each food group."_

and, from the closing paragraph:

 _" When it comes to losing weight, the advice is pretty dull – eat less and
exercise more."_

~~~
gadders
The closing sentence might just have said "calories in vs calories out".

------
cromulent
The people that I know that are on the Paleo diet have lost weight and feel
healthier. I am skeptical about the rationale behind the Paleo diet and
attribute most of the benefits to them paying attention to their food intake
and general health (and eschewing junk food) rather than the theory. The
outcome is the important thing.

~~~
acconrad
It's the same argument for vegetarians/vegans as well. When you have an
unlimited supply of food (and variety of foods), you can eat without thinking,
and eating without thinking leads to poor food choices. When you specifically
and consciously limit that variety, you have to become much more creative and
active in how to enjoy the foods you eat while staying vegan/paleo/whatever.
The problem is that the people following these diets attribute it to the diet
itself, when in actuality it's the methodology of food selection from a subset
of healthier foods that was the real attributor to their success.

~~~
Dewie
I'm not convinced. Vegans have to be mindful of _what_ kind of vegan food that
they eat in order to get enough proteins, and perhaps also B12. This is
something that is usually easily/trivially satisfied by a regular omnivore
diet.

So it's not just a question of eating varied vegan food as a side-effect of
not getting bored with it, but getting enough vegan food that has proteins in
it.

Does paleo suffer the same deficiency, i.e. is it simple to be lacking in some
specific substances that are pretty vital when following a paleo diet?

~~~
latch
I think a vegan would intentionally need to try to avoid protein, or a
specific amino acid, to run into any issues (or be uneducated about basic
nutrition, in which case any diet could be dangerous).

B12 is a different issue. I cheat and eat Corn Flakes and plain Cheerios with
various types of fortified "milks".

~~~
rsynnott
> I think a vegan would intentionally need to try to avoid protein, or a
> specific amino acid, to run into any issues

It's certainly possible for a vegan to miss certain amino acids, but it's not
as hard as it's made out to be to get them all.

------
logicchains
While I personally believe in the effectiveness of the paleo diet, I think
there's too much focus on whether or not it allows people lose weight without
eating less. The average American dietary intake per day is around 3,700
kilocalories[1], compared to a recommended value of around 2,000 kilocalories,
so it's no mystery why people are getting fatter. I hence think an effective
topic of study would be how effective various diets are at making people
consume less calories, and the paleo diet seems to be great at this, due to
involving many foods that produce greater satiety.

Even if the body treated all calories equally, automatically storing all
excess energy as fat, the paleo diet could still have an advantage purely
because of its interactions with human physiology somehow reducing appetite
and hence reducing total calories consumed.

1\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energ...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake)

~~~
natejenkins
Something is off in these numbers. There are 9000 calories in a kilogram of
fat. If Americans were really eating 1700 calories more than required each day
they would be gaining around 1.3kg/week (about 3 pounds). Of course, given the
same amount of physical activity, the heavier you are the more calories are
required to maintain your current weight, so that eventually this 1.3kg/week
would level off.

From personal experience, I would say the average weight gain per year in the
US is a few kilograms, let's say 2. This is 18000 calories in excess, which is
just about 50 calories a day, or basically one apple too many. The clear
lesson to be learned is to cut back on the apples.

There are some studies that agree with my anecdotal evidence:
[http://www.livestrong.com/article/142567-average-increase-
we...](http://www.livestrong.com/article/142567-average-increase-weight-
adults/)

~~~
logicchains
Well the numbers are from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, and I can't think what reason they'd have to produce flawed
statistics, but then again I can't find the original study methodology so
there's no way to be sure.

~~~
natejenkins
I think the table on the Wikipedia page is misleading. The first paragraph
states:

"Food consumption refers to the amount of food available for human consumption
as estimated by the FAO Food Balance Sheets. However the actual food
consumption may be lower than the quantity shown as food availability
depending on the magnitude of wastage and losses of food in the household,
e.g. during storage, in preparation and cooking, as plate-waste or quantities
fed to domestic animals and pets, thrown or given away."

This is the amount of food available for consumption per person, not the
amount consumed. Waste at the grocery store, waste at home, and uneaten food
left on the plate are not taken into account, and I would guess that all three
are important factors.

~~~
plorkyeran
The per-capita value is also going to be inherently skewed above the
recommended level due to that there's more room for eating over the
recommended level than eating below it. It's much easier to be stable at 3000
calories per day (due to either being already overweight or exercising a lot)
than at 1000 calories per day.

------
firasd
I’ve been doing Paleo and low-​carb for about an year. It’s been
unquestionably effective. However, in the course of trying various adjustments
over this time, I’ve basically concluded that any sort of “eliminationist”
diet — Paleo, low carb, gluten free, vegan, you decide what’s best for you —
can work well, as long as it’s generally safe and you pay attention to how
your selections affect how you look and feel. Such an approach is what I’d
recommend over generic calorie counting. Food is such a potent input into your
body; picking and choosing what you put in can make all the difference.

------
netman21
I have been grain free for 6 months. 25 pounds down and within 4 pounds of
dropping below 25 BMI. (55 yr old male) I am convinced that the best way to
"eat less" is eliminate all grains. Within three weeks I lost all cravings for
carbs. I can walk into a Starbucks at the airport and not even look at the
pastries. The breadbasket before dinner at the restaurant invokes a meh
response. It takes about three weeks to get over what feels like a carb
addiction. Read the first chapter of Wheat Belly for inspiration. Read Grain
Brain next.

~~~
st3fan
Congrats! Same here! I went low carb a few months ago and I will reach 25
pounds down next week probably.

~~~
netman21
Well there you go. Dieting and personal health is the new enlightenment. Who
needs scientific statistical studies of samples when what matters is our own
reaction to treatment. Only we can do an experiment that is verifiable,
repeatable, and trustworthy. :-)

------
hownottowrite
Actual study:
[http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v68/n3/full/ejcn2013290a....](http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v68/n3/full/ejcn2013290a.html)

Interesting note in the conclusion: "Adherence to protein intake was poor in
the PD group."

I wondered if this would impact skeletal muscle mass, but the author's
previous research indicates that does not appear to be the case.

[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12048/abstra...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12048/abstract;jsessionid=91F6C0F390137F3D6151347F2934533C.f03t02)

------
elfcard
Bread is a heavily processed food, and it's essentially sugar, and it's so
easily broken down into glucose, this process is so easy, it first starts in
your mouth as amalayse (sp?) begins digestion while you masticate. A common
intro bio lesson is to chew a soda cracker until it begins to get sweet. Whole
wheat breads are sugar with soluble and insoluble materials that aids in
moving food material through the gut because we evolved eating a lot of crap
that we couldn't digest. So to suggest that I've evolved in 7000 years to
digest milk, but not evolved to no longer require fibre requires genetic
proof, and I've not seen that study. Evolution doesn't work that way
regardless, and certainly not over as little as 200 generations that were
geographically locked genetically for all but the last few hundred years. That
said, just because it's processed, doesn't immediately make it bad for us.
Olive oil, yoghurt, etc... all have some observable health benefits. And
products like cheeses and bacon are absolutely processed, and show little to
no health benefit, but if you took them out of my diet, I may suffer
depression, so I unscientifically say they cure depression (in me).

~~~
erkkie
there's lots of vitamin k in (real) cheese, I hear you with bacon though :)

------
spodek
The biology of the human body and food is so complex, science is nowhere close
to understanding it helpfully enough to design a diet, even if you call it an
old diet. I'd bet you'd find a high correlation between unhealthy diet and
degree of "scientific" perspective people had on their diet. I offer the
United States as exhibit one.

~~~
ben_straub
> The biology of the human body and food is so complex, science is nowhere
> close to understanding it helpfully enough to design a diet

To me, this is an argument for eating real foods, and a reason to be skeptical
of things like soylent. But I don't think you can get from there to saying it
doesn't matter what you eat, or that anybody with a rationale behind their
food choices is delusional.

~~~
erkkie
To me, too, this is the biggest argument in favor of avoiding specific fads
and eating "real" food, there's been too many reversals of x is good / x is
bad in the recent decades to try to even pretend we know. (not to mention
there are still new phytochemicals being found in fruits and vegetables all
the time, things we wouldn't even know to artificially add in things like
soylent)

------
lugg
Couple of questions I have for anyone in the know about this.

While we may have not evolved a great deal over the last 30 thousand or so
years, our bacteria may well have. That would cover our entire digestion
systems mouth to anus. I suspect those bacteria have evolved in many ways that
may mean we can eat a more modern diet without doing any harm or perhaps doing
better. Has this been covered by any of the studies?

I have to question the avoidance of things like bread. Even in Paleolithic
times we had crude forms of processed grains and bread. Are proponents of
palaeo saying to cut these out completely or just cut out the highly refined
kinds?

~~~
mariusz79
Paleo Diet is not really a best name to the describe this diet. Better name
would be "hunter-gatherer diet" but that's not too marketable. The whole
premise of this diet can be summarized as this:

\- eat what you can kill

\- eat what you can gather

\- eat only stuff that can be eaten raw (that includes meat and fish)

------
whistlerbrk
I hate this articles conclusion, I truly hate it. Every single body is
different and you need to find out what works for you. That requires wading
through an _unbelievable_ amount of false and misinformation in order to find
the truth - for you.

I followed a (modified) ketogenic diet very successfully for the winter and
lost 20 lbs. That diet will absolutely NOT work for everyone but it will work
for many people. As will paleo, as will atkins, as will south beach. Find out
what works for you. Experiment.

Finding a magic bullet for dieting is like finding a magic bullet for fashion.
There is NO one size, one style fits all solution.

------
ScottWhigham
I've been paleo for about a year now and, while I like the results, we're
talking about a 35 woman study (70 total women divided into two groups).
That's the basis for an alpha study, not a conclusive result. I'd love to say
that "this is the proof we paleos have been wanting to show everyone!" but the
sample size is just too small. Yes, it's encouraging but let's not blow it out
of proportion.

------
1stop
I feel like rather than diet fads, for weight loss. People just need to learn
about Ketosis[0] and how to trigger it in your body (hint: have a tiny amount
of carbs).[2]

Your body turns into a fat burning machine. Any way you can achieve it without
feeling like you are starving is going to be an effective weight loss
strategy. Paleo, Atkins, Lemon/Honey/Coffee/whatever detox, etc. You cut out
carbs, your liver starts burning fat.

But beware: They (the scientific community) haven't reached consensus on
whether you should do this long term[1]. It seems to be trending towards "it's
probably okay" though. I think it puts more strain on your kidney's (because
of the ketons)

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis)

[1]
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=long+term+ketosis&btnG=&...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=long+term+ketosis&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5)

[2] Disclaimer: I'm not a dr. I most likely am wrong about more than 1 thing
I've said :-)

------
dirktheman
The Paleo diet is all the rage here in The Netherlands as well. While I
applaud people being conscious about their nutrition, I find the caveman-
parabole hilarious. Most cavemen didn't live to see 40, and there's the little
thing called evolution, too. People can adapt to different eating habits even
within their own lifespan, let alone in +10,000 years.

The magic bullet for diets: a moderate intake of food from a diverse diet
consisting mostly of fresh fruit, vegetables and some form of protein, paired
with ample exercise. Wether you call it 'Paleo' and leave out 'modern'
ingredients, leave out the carbs and call it Atkins, or focus on good carbs
and good fat (South Beach), it doesn't matter. My wife lost a good amount of
weight by eating until she didn't feel hungry anymore, and exercising
regularly.

~~~
monochr
This thread is incredibly depressing.

All the people complaining about this diet being a fad are just regurgitating
the fads from their childhood as facts. Vegetables and fresh fruit needn't
form anywhere near a majority of a diet for you to be healthy, there are
enough traditional societies for this.

The problem for the modern diet is that we have the appetites of an animal
that should burn about ~4000 calories a day yet only expend around ~3000 on
average.

Now if you want to be healthy as well as skinny instead of lowering your
calorie intake you're much better off increasing your exercise.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
Reconstructions of what medieval people ate indicate they were often downing
over 4500 calories a day. And their food was probably a lot more nutrient
dense than ours in terms of minerals and vitamins.

I think with typical modern foods it is somewhat difficult to get adequate
micronutrient intake on a sub 3000 calorie diet. This is where the calorie
in/out idea falls down. If you undereat you are going to tank your metabolism
and also have some deficiency problems.

Not only are we made to be walking around getting exercise for much of the
day, it is critically important to realize we are made to be doing it outside.
Sun light exposure is a huge deal for health. People who spend time outside
live longer. Just light exposure on its own boosts metabolism.

~~~
victorhooi
Yes, but we probably aren't half as active as those medieval people...

I agree with you about the activity though.

It's like you go to rural China, and you see the farmers eating tonnes of rice
and vegetables. And I'm sure the low-carbohydrate crowd is going "OH NO!
You'll get fat!!".

Well, no, they're farmers, and they work damn hard outside all day.

Or the fact that professional swimmers down 20,000 calories a day - well, yes,
if you're in the pool 6 hours a day and doing weights out of it. You're still
going to look like Thor...

------
kbrower
Paleo diets happen to be high protein and low carb. Protein is the most
satiating macronutrient and carbs are the least. This type of diet is
effective because macronutrient ratio it makes it easier to have a calorie
deficit and not be hungry.

~~~
baal80spam
I am quite sure that fat is the most satiating macro, not protein.

~~~
will_work4tears
Well, not necessarily. It's the most calorie dense, perhaps, but not always
the most satiating.

For instance, the best index put together so far lists potatoes as the most
satiating. And the number two is a very lean fish.

[0] - (pdf)
[http://www.ernaehrungsdenkwerkstatt.de/fileadmin/user_upload...](http://www.ernaehrungsdenkwerkstatt.de/fileadmin/user_upload/EDWText/TextElemente/Ernaehrungswissenschaft/Naehrstoffe/Saettigung_Lebensmittel_Satiety_Index.pdf)

------
coriny
There's a lot of poor science behind the paleodiet hypothesis - though it may
well work as a healthy diet.

The one point I'm going to make is that our ancestors of a million years ago
ate a very wide range of diets that were entirely ecosystem & lifestyle
dependent (as we still observe in the modern world). So there is no such thing
as "the diet" our ancestors ate, they ate many diets, some were better than
others.

I also find the assertion that our digestion - even in terms of commensal gut
bacteria - hasn't changed in that time a bit odd. We observe rapid adaptations
to diet (e.g. in a handful of generations) in other species.

------
acconrad
Do we all have this blind optimism that someday, one day, we can _actually_
wake up and read the news that there finally is a magic pill to solve our
problems? All of these articles read the same - link bait title convincing you
that the magic bullet might be here, followed by an article analyzing the
diet, and a conclusion that there is still no magic bullet; that diet and
exercise have (and continue to be) the tried-and-true (boring) methods for
longevity, weight management and overall health. How is it that we still get
sucked in?

------
wil421
>Proponents argue modern disorders like heart disease, diabetes and cancer
have arisen primarily from the incompatibility between our current forms of
diet and our prehistoric anatomy.

I would argue these problems have been around forever they just may be more
identifiable today. Now the rate at which we get things like heart disease is
probably going up because of the rise in obesity. A diet is not exactly the
problem its more of the rate and quantities in which a lot of people eat.

------
PerfectElement
You should follow the Paleo diet if you don't want to live past your 60's like
the Inuit and the Masai, who have been on a low carb diet for generations and
have very low life expectancy.

Just research what science (not blogs) has to say about spending your life in
ketosis.

Plus, there's nothing Paleolithic about the Paleo diet:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8)

------
feld
No. Just stop eating so many processed foods. That's all it takes. You don't
need to jump on the latest diet trend to be healthy.

~~~
markild
Though I would necessarily say it's that simple, the article kinda seem to end
up with a similar conclusion

> So, there’s no hard and fast evidence yet that we should be eating like
> cavepeople. It is of course unhealthy to eat a diet which mainly consists of
> highly processed foods like white bread and sugary cereals, but this doesn’t
> mean that all dairy products and grains need to be avoided unless you have a
> specific problem with them.

------
wavefunction
"Cave people" ate whatever they could get their hands on: it's time to put
this diet fad to rest. Now, should you eat mostly vegetables, a little fruit,
lean protein and some healthy fats while skipping the processed foods and
sugars? Yeah, but stop acting like you're getting back to something from the
"cave days."

~~~
monochr
"Now, should you eat mostly vegetables, a little fruit, lean protein and some
healthy fats while skipping the processed foods and sugars? Yeah, but stop
acting like you're getting back to something from the "cave days.""

Literally none of that is true, these are just old diet fads that have become
folk knowledge.

People have managed to survive for thousands of years in the arctic circle
eating nothing but fatty foods, people have survived in the fertile crescent
for thousands of years eating nothing but cereals for thousands of years.

The human body can adapt to just about any sort of food.

What people nowhere have adapted to do is sit in a chair for 14 hours a day
and not move.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Agreed that the human body is adaptable, but I would argue that it's also
adaptable to an idle lifestyle of 14 hrs/day in a chair. There are many
examples of individuals with indolent lifestyles or office jobs who are living
well into their 70s and beyond. My own father is an example - never walked,
never exercised, smoked for 50 years - and is pushing 90, albeit not in great
health but mentally still sound.

I think most of us would enjoy a better quality of life if we ate optimally
and stayed active, but genetics seems to be a key factor nonetheless; luck of
the draw.

------
s_baby
My problem with Paleo people is the dogmatic language they use. They draw some
very convincing conclusions but then turn their speculation into rigid rules.
It's hard to have a conversation about the diet without throwing the baby out
with the bath water.

------
vixin
I'd need some convincing.
[http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1...](http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml)

~~~
atom-morgan
Are you referring to lifespans? Of course modern medicine has been great. I
don't think anybody would deny that. But the question is, where could that
number be today with a better diet?

------
narag
It's possible to eat much less, tastier and healthier than a lot of people
does now. Overeating looks very much like a legal drug.

Now you don't need to go far away in time to find cultures with healthy food
habits. Do you?

------
rohanpai
If it was not marketed at "eat like a caveman" I think it would have more
adoption. Paleo is really just about eating more natural foods (less processed
foods). It works well.

------
Borkdude
I have the feeling the paleo diet is more popular among programmers / nerds
than for example a whole foods vegan diet (which I'm following). Why could
this be?

~~~
scottjad
Programmers read a lot of blogs and use reddit, and paleo bloggers and
/r/paleo are much more popular than vegan bloggers and /r/vegan. Of course the
causation could go in the other direction, so I'm just guessing here.

------
peterwwillis
As is common with articles that end with a question mark, the answer is by
default a "No."

------
md2be
No! The reason "water". Water can't be hacked. Or maybe it can. :)

------
monochr
BRB, looking for a mammoth.

