Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - paleophil

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
Diet and nutrition / Re: Is it Paleo? (flowchart)
« on: December 21, 2014, 05:05:03 PM »
I've already pointed out that accidental ingestion of legumes might have happened.
I'm not talking about "accidental" ingestion. Let's consider the 0% ingestion you advocated to mean 0% intentional ingestion. The occasional accidental scrap of this or that is negligible and unimportant, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm still interested in answers to the actual questions I asked, rather than to unrelated stuff I haven't asked. Are you claiming that legume fruits and tubers are essentially no different than legume seeds and that ALL parts of legume plants should be completely avoided as totally unPaleo or not?

If the neanderthals in question were actually gathering plants to eat, which I highly doubt, then there's no reason to believe that the gathering was distinct from the beginnings of agriculture.
Regardless of whether you think it makes a difference or not, please humor me with an answer to my question--which do you think it was, Neanderthal Levantine agriculture of domesticated plants or gathering of wild plants?

Now, a question for you.  Given that the levantine neanderthal finds involve a lot more grassy cereal grains than legumes, do you believe that grains should be added to the paleo diet as well as legumes?  The evidence is weaker for the legumes than for the grains, after all.
I'll gladly answer your question after you answer mine. Give and take--it's only fair. It will also help to make my answer more understandable.

Diet and nutrition / Re: Is it Paleo? (flowchart)
« on: December 21, 2014, 08:06:42 AM »
So then you are not limiting your 100% avoidance advice to just legume seeds, yes? Are you claiming that legume fruits and tubers are essentially no different than legume seeds, since seeds might be accidentally consumed with them and that no part of any legume plant was consumed before agriculture?

I don't see an answer to my earlier question. Are you arguing that since the levantine Neanderthal finds were near the transition to agriculture, that they must have been engaging in it, and not just gathering wild plants?

Diet and nutrition / Re: Is it Paleo? (flowchart)
« on: December 21, 2014, 07:03:44 AM »
It would be an interesting hypothesis that Neanderthals were engaging in agriculture. I haven't seen that proposed before. Are you arguing that since the levantine Neanderthal finds were near the transition to agriculture, that they must have been engaging in it, and not just gathering wild plants?

I'm not ignoring anything, the consumption of foods from legume plants by humans and other primates goes back millions of years. If you limit your claim to just legume seeds (aka "beans"), then you have more of a case for avoidance (though still not a solid one), but then it would be clearer to say beans and peanuts than legumes.

Diet and nutrition / Re: Is it Paleo? (flowchart)
« on: December 21, 2014, 06:48:26 AM »
So you at least admit the "possibility" of >0% plant protein consumption and legume consumption, by the Neanderthals, yes? If so, then it's possible that there may be a place for protein-containing plant foods and foods from legumes plants in Paleo diets, for those who tolerate them, yes? Perhaps we just disagree on what the upper level of tolerance would be. I'm not trying to claim that anything is 100% proven.

Diet and nutrition / Re: Is it Paleo? (flowchart)
« on: December 20, 2014, 05:17:33 PM »
Do you mean the isotope research of Richards and Trinkaus ( )? I read their study report years ago and was misled by it. Did you read the article that cavegirljoy linked to in this thread in September, where you will find research showing that Neanderthals of Shanidar Cave, Iraq, and Spy Cave, Belgium likely ate wild varieties of legumes and grass seeds (Triticeae), and other research that has debunked the Neanderthal isotope research?

Evidence also suggests that Neanderthals of El Sidrón Cave in northern Spain consumed roasted starchy plants and herbs:

Neanderthals ate their greens
Tooth analysis shows that European hominins roasted vegetables and may have used medicinal plants.
Matt Kaplan
18 July 2012

...and that Neanderthals of Lev, Kislev, and Bar-Yosef, Israel ate grains, fruits and legumes:

What were Neanderthals eating?
By: Jordyn Fugere

"Research by Lev, Kislev, and Bar-Yosef[5] (further referred to as Lev et al.) examined Mousterian era carbonized plant remains in the Kebara Cave on Mt. Carmel in Israel. Lev et al. recovered a total of 4205 charred seeds and fruits around nearby hearths within the cave through flotation of materials in the lab. Of these 4205 seeds and fruit they identified 3956 of them, with a large majority (3313) of the specimens residing within the legume family. Ten different grains of Graimineae or “true grasses” were found at the site, presenting the possibility of the exploitation of cereal grains such as wheat, rice, millet, or barley in the Neanderthal diet. Because of the high legume content, there is also evidence for the possibility of a large part of the vegetarian Neanderthal diet consisting of wild plants and seeds that contained some poisonous substances."

[5] Lev, Efraim, Kislev, Mordechai, Bar-Yosef, Ofer. “Mousterian vegetal food in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel.” Journal of Archaeological Science. 32. (2005) 475-484.

And Neanderthal plant consumption was further confirmed by this recent research:

The Neanderthal Meal: A New Perspective Using Faecal Biomarkers
Ainara Sistiaga mail, Carolina Mallol, Bertila Galván, Roger Everett Summons
Published: June 25, 2014

"Neanderthal dietary reconstructions have, to date, been based on indirect evidence and may underestimate the significance of plants as a food source. ... Neanderthal dietary reconstructions have, to date, been based on indirect evidence and may underestimate the significance of plants as a food source. ... Analysis of five sediment samples from different occupation floors suggests that Neanderthals predominantly consumed meat, as indicated by high coprostanol proportions, but also had significant plant intake, as shown by the presence of 5ß-stigmastanol."

The Neanderthal diet was meat heavy, but accumulating evidence suggests that Neanderthals got more than 0% protein and starch from plants.

Diet and nutrition / Re: Is it Paleo? (flowchart)
« on: December 18, 2014, 06:54:51 PM »
If you don't like the Hadza, what about Neanderthals and Australian Aborigines, are they satisfactory models, or do you have any others that meet your requirements?

The foods in the image from science research were wild-gathered, not agrarian.

The idea that all legumes are ruled out is a Paleomyth.

Even most Paleo diet advocates do not claim that 0% of protein came from plants during the Paleolithic.

Exercises / Re: Crossfit Vs Bodybuilding
« on: December 07, 2014, 09:10:55 AM »
The cost and reports of overtraining to the point of vomiting or even rhabdomyolysis (aka "Uncle Rabdo," - I wonder if eating VLC/keto while Crossfitting also contributes to that?) and injuries from poor form were factors in my deciding not to try Crossfit up to now. However, the level of intensity probably varies by gym and instructor and I was told by a Crossfitter that the local Crossfit gym isn't extreme. Cost is my main current issue, so I'm sticking with the free unsupervised mini-gym in my building for now. Being unsupervised is even more likely to involve poor form, as Crossfit defenders rightly point out, so I tend to do only very simple, low-risk movements or use machines when using heavier weights, and mainly use the gym as a minor complement to my outdoor exercise.

I wonder if the higher-than-avg cost is due to higher staff expenses due to more supervision by staff? I suspect that staff costs are higher than equipment costs for most gyms.

Ironically, one of the reportedly common complaints about Crossfit is that it makes women too "ripped" with "bulky" muscles, rather than not ripped enough.  ;D

> "Googling “CrossFit” can be just as dangerous to one’s psyche as Googling one’s health symptoms. Photos and videos pop up of seriously ripped men and women with bulging, veiny muscles heaving tractor-trailer tires across a field."


Diet and nutrition / Re: Is it Paleo? (flowchart)
« on: December 07, 2014, 08:19:48 AM »
The chart is a great piece of work that clearly explains the prescribed view of the paleo diet.

However, the diet isn't a true representation of what cave people ate. I particularly dispute legumes and grains, because there's ample evidence they ate these; as do most tribal peoples today.

A very informative page to read about this can be found at - - it gives the true picture of the extent of legume and grain use in the eary human diet.
Yes, it seems that the "Godfather of Paleo," Boyd Eaton, was right to regard legumes as "Paleo," with even Neanderthals having both eaten legumes and grains, as Prof. Guyenet pointed out. I wonder if Prof. Cordain was aware that Hadza hunter gatherers ate legume tubers and seed pods such as Ekwa hasa, Shumuwako, and Mangwala and also tamarind legume fruit when he changed the classification of legumes to not-Paleo and didn't mention these foods?

Image from: Metabolism, Anthropometry and Nutrition Lab,

Sex Differences in Food Preferences of Hadza Hunter-Gatherers,

That of course doesn't guarantee that those foods were optimal, but the case for regarding these foods as completely unPaleo and avoiding them, particularly legumes, is looking weaker and weaker as evidence accumulates to the contrary. It's no wonder that legumes were the only staple food (aside from water) that was eaten by all 5 Blue Zone populations -

Update to my earlier comment: I no longer get aches and pains and lower extremity edema from sweet potatoes and tolerate all tubers better since incorporating more fermentable fiber (aka Microbiota Accessible Carbohydrates in my diet. Trying to do it directly via whole foods high in digestible starch right off the bat didn't work--even gradually--but starting out with sources high in RS and low in digestible starch (such as dried green plantains, green bananas and mung bean starch) did enable me to gradually incorporate more whole food sources over time. I'm not prescribing that, just sharing my experience. I suspect that the reason certain tubers and legumes had been such a problem for me in the past was largely due to subpar GI microbiome.

Diet and nutrition / Re: Why Almonds but not peanuts
« on: June 15, 2014, 11:52:01 AM »
Good news for almond lovers like me--evidence was found of significant wild almond consumption by hominins (the current guess is H. erectus) 780,000 years ago, albeit of a different almond species (Amygdalus korshinskii) than that believed to be the ancestor of today's domesticated almonds (Amygdalus fenzliana). If true, then it seems like that wild almonds are not as inedible and toxic as widely claimed, at least this particular species.

I was eating some almonds anyway, but it's nice to see some evidence suggesting that it may be an ancestral food.

Diet and nutrition / Re: Why Almonds but not peanuts
« on: June 06, 2014, 04:09:49 AM »
Almonds are one of the foods highest in phytic acid content:

Food    Phytic acid (mg/100 grams)
Almonds   350–9,420
Walnuts   200–6,700
Sesame seeds   140–5,360
Pecans   180–4,520
Spinach   3,670
Swiss chard   3,530
Legumes (average)   500–2,900
Dark chocolate   1,680–1,790
Lentils   270–1,500

Brazilnuts and sesame seeds can contain more per this source:

Chris Kresser did warn about the high lectin content and aflatoxin risk of American peanuts. On the other hand, he also pointed out that "lectins are present in at least 53 fruits, vegetables, spices and other commonly eaten plants, including carrots, zucchini, melon, grapes, cherries, raspberries, blackberries, garlic and mushrooms."

Diet and nutrition / Re: Why Almonds but not peanuts
« on: June 03, 2014, 04:44:20 PM »
Sounds from the article that this is speculation that the actual evidence does not support:

"Although he thinks the ancient humans ate certain nuts, including the peanut-like groundnut, their teeth suggest brittle edibles were mostly absent from their diet."
Note the bolded part of the quote.

It's also to be noted that A. anamensis was prepaleolithic, before the use of stone tools and before any increase in brain size from that of chimps.
A. anamensis is believed to be a stem-human species So if Prof. Gabriele Macho is correct, then consumption of groundnuts goes way back, and continues to this very day. I haven't seen corroborating evidence, though, so his hunch could be wrong.

Homo erectus, a later human ancestor than Australopithecines, reportedly ate more brittle foods than other early humans:

"Homo erectus munched on crunchy, brittle and tough foods, while other early humans seemed to favour softer fare, according to a new analysis of teeth." Homo erectus ate crunchy food,

And there is evidence of consumption of other legumes (Fabaceae) by Stone Agers and more recent HG's:

"a large assemblage of charred seeds and fruits (legumes, acorns, pistachios) were recovered from the Mousterian levels at Kebara Cave, Israel (Lev et al. 2005)"

"It appears that ~50 of the 800 species of Acacia (wattle trees) native to Australia were used by [Australian Aborigines] for food.  Despite the wattle being Australia’s national flower, the seeds are generally unknown to non-AA as food sources. But Acacia seeds are outstanding in their nutrient content, being much higher in energy, protein and fat than any cereal crop such as wheat and rice. Their composition more closely resembles that of the legume family to which the Acacias actually belong."

Even using Ray Audette's definition of "Paleo" (foods that are "edible when you are naked with a sharp stick", groundnuts and certain other legumes qualify. Other legumes that are edible raw include legume tubers like jicama (aka Mexican potato) and legume fruits like tamarinds.

Compare that to wild almonds, which are reportedly too toxic raw to eat more than a few at a time, are generally referred to as inedible, and have reportedly been consumed by humans for less than 10,000 years.

Diet and nutrition / Re: Why Almonds but not peanuts
« on: May 31, 2014, 10:59:51 AM »
Gabriele Macho, a professor of paleoanthropology at the University of Bradford thinks that Australopithecus anamensis ate the African "peanut-like groundnut" legume (raw) 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago (

Kimematic parameters inferred from enamel microstruture: new insights into the diet of Australopithecus anamensis
by Gabriele Macho and Daisuke Shimizu
Received 10 March 2009

Groundnuts were domesticated in Africa "between 9000 and 5000 BCE" (

Neanderthals likely ate wild varieties of peas and fava beans (Fabaceae, aka legumes):
> Beans, Lentils, and the Paleo Diet
Prof. Stephan Guyenet
> Microfossils in calculus demonstrate consumption of plants and cooked foods in Neanderthal diets (Shanidar III, Iraq; Spy I and II, Belgium)
Amanda G. Henry, Alison S. Brooks, and Dolores R. Piperno

"The tsin bean is the second most important food of the !Kung in the Southern parts of the Dobe area and in Nyae Nyae" (Dr. Bindon, Nutritional Anthropology,, 7 Apr 2013, per Richard B. Lee in "The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society" and "Politics, sexual and non-sexual in an egalitarian society,"

African Bambara groundnuts are edible raw dried.

The more closely related (the ancestor of north American domesticated peanuts, which itself was domesticated from two wild species South American "jungle peanuts" are also edible raw dried:

Even North American peanuts are edible raw dried, as long as they are not contaminated with aflatoxin, and I have eaten them myself on occasion since I was a kid, decades ago:

Almonds are believed to have been domesticated from wild "bitter almonds" thousands of years ago, probably the Amygdalus fenzliana species (,, which are more toxic.

Diet and nutrition / Re: Is it Paleo? (flowchart)
« on: May 01, 2014, 07:18:25 PM »
The deal is there is no general consensus, thus we are each left to figure it out ourselves.

I seem to have found something that helps me tolerate sweet potatoes, potatoes and other foods of varying carbiness a bit better and improved my blood glucose modulation--foods rich in resistant starch, inulin and other prebiotics, especially the RS. So tubers are now closer to "Paleo"/beneficial for me, though I still generally tolerate raw carbs better than cooked.

Oddly enough, mung beans have so far turned out to be one of my more beneficial foods. I had never heard of them, much less guessed such a thing.

Diet and nutrition / Re: Acne and Digestive issues since Paleo
« on: August 05, 2013, 02:38:11 PM »
I mentioned  fermented and prebiotic foods and I used to think that fermented cod liver oil was a fermented food in the sense of being a probiotic that contains a lot of probiotic bacteria. However, someone pointed out to me that oil/fat doesn't ferment, and therefore fermented cod liver oil isn't so much a fermented food as a food processed via fermentation. The fermentation is apparently used to extract the oil, rather than to add probiotics.

Recipes and meal photos / Re: Norcal margarita recipe
« on: July 09, 2013, 04:58:13 PM »
I tried it and found it to be an utter disaster for me. I'm puzzled why so many Paleos promote it. Is there a particular brand of Tequila that's better? So far I've found I handle artisinal meads, unfiltered sakes and a couple hard ciders much better.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8