Although some foods are best consumed raw, others (such as beans/legumes and chicken eggs) are more nutritionally beneficial when cooked. In fact, eating raw eggs means you don't get all the protein from them, and it will leach biotin from your system.
Most "fad" diets have at least one good principle: Less carbs means less insulin shock (Atkins); lowering unhealthy fat intake makes you healthier, raw foods have more nutrition (raw food diet), etc. The problem comes when you base an entire diet around those principles and neglect others. For example, early Atkins adherents majorly increased their meat intake, and without addressing the preparation or fat content of that steak, made themselves less healthy, even with less weight. But hey, no carbs, eh?
(then there's just plain silly diets like those based on blood type or that don't let you eat any kind of animal product)
I actually do somthing similar to this "cave man diet" I eat mostly fruits vegitables some raw some cooked. I eat fish eggs and beans for protien. Occasionnaly i will eat beef or chicken. Add in seeds, nuts, and the rare whole grian bread. It works out pretty well for me i have good energy levels I have ideal blood pressure. The one down side is i dont gain mass from lifting weights. The other component is that my diet is taylored based off of my ancestry my family is standard american mix of northern european folks so i eat very close to the way that they did. That is my experience with it, although i never realized it was the cave man diet.
Originally Posted by Planktime
What do you mean exactly by a northern european diet ? the diet you describe above doesn't sound very northern european to me, because it's very light on the meat, breads/pastries and dairy.
The other component is that my diet is taylored based off of my ancestry my family is standard american mix of northern european folks so i eat very close to the way that they did. That is my experience with it, although i never realized it was the cave man diet.
There is sometimes significant tradeoff in the raw vs. cooked state of foods. Depending on the structure of the food, especially when consumed with fiber (or fibrous foods) it may actually carry a lot of nutrients through the bowels too quickly to be fully consumed. Basically, cooking food breaks down the cell walls and allows the nutrients to be more full released and more easily broken down. It also weakens the fiber so that it is easier to pass. So while you can get more nutrients in raw foods, they can actually impart less nutritional value than the identical cooked food.
Originally Posted by samurai_steve
My friend is a hardgainer too. The solution that worked best for him was a protein shake after workouts. But even with that he really had to go to the gym 5 times a week, and do extreme isolation exercises. His primary diet is chicken and rice, occasional beef/vegies (it's a cultural thing).
Originally Posted by Planktime
I don't want to be too critical here, but there seem to be some misconceptions about ancient humans popping up, throughout this thread - nothing personal. lawdog, but I picked this one 'cause I find it interesting. (FWIW, I've been spending a good bit of time recently finding papers on human evolution; last couple days I've been pondering the importance of adaptation to endurance running as determing step in human evolution - humans initially evolved to be marathon runners).
Originally Posted by lawdog
Don't interpret the finding of arthritis in Neanderthal bones as evidence that the Neanderthal were less healthy, or more prone to auto-immune disease - instead, interpret this finding as that the Neanderthal had highly developed social structure.
With a poorly developed social structure, unhealthy individuals die early; in more developed societies, the less healthy are cared for. In the case of the Neanderthal, a higher prevalence of arthritis than in other human ancestors suggests that the Neanderthal took care of the elderly - feed them when they could forage to feed themselves. See http://sapphire.indstate.edu/~ramanank/care.html.
A similar argument is made, IIRC, for socialism among certain extinct animals. Sometimes, a skeleton is found with evidence of a badly broken bone, one that had been healed for some time after the animals death. Sometimes, these breaks almost certainly would have limited tha animals ability to fend for itself. That the broken limb healed, and that the animal lived for some time after the break with a disability, suggests a social group that cared for the animal.
The point is, it's hard to make guesses about the lifestyle of old bones; sometimes the more obvious interpretations are incorrect.
For a better interpretation of the paleolithic lifestyle, try (though it is several years out of date):
Another side, this one emphasizes malnutrition in the hunter/gatherer diet:
and one on the Neanderthal diet - serious meat eaters
Finally - Raw Meat Diet (http://www.karlloren.com/human-raw-meat-diet.htm) - big load of crap - Type I diabetes is not *caused* by diet; Type II, there is a link to diet, but sedentary lifestyle and obesity is probably more important as a cause.
This article is very critical of such a diet. Quite a bit of support to back it up as well.
Some choice quotes:
Of course you wouldn't. (whew!) Yet with their careless interpretation of our past, evolutionary pop-nutritionists have begun to sell you trendy "paleo-diets" that suggest we should return to our roots and eat like cavemen. Why are people buying? Well, we think that they're buying because they just don't know anything about what our ancestors ate or why they ate it. So let's clear something up from the start. There was no single "Paleo-Diet."
Back in the day, humans ate whatever they could get their hands on. Seriously, whatever. Life during the Paleolithic was far from idyllic. People lived short, rough, smelly lives. They didn't sit back and make food choices. Dahling, do you feel like the Beef Tar-Tar or the Chicken Cordon Bleu?
Also, it's important to keep in mind that there was no "Paleo Body Type." There was a ton of variability in the sizes and shapes of our evolutionary ancestors, just like there are many physical varieties of people around the world today. Granted, people in the past didn't have as many cheaply gathered empty calories as we have today. Therefore, it would've been hard to find lots of fat Neanderthals or early Homo sapiens. Yet there's no question that there were a few fat people in the Paleolithic.
Last edited by Samfoo; 10/09/2005 11:38pm at .
Believe me, I wouldn't be foolish enough to read much into those findings, particularly in terms of diet, as there are way to many factors involved. You made the same point I was hoping to make, regarding those findings. Nobody seemed to pick up on it though.
Originally Posted by dakotajudo
Ok. Let's pretend that I forgot to get my biology degree on the way to the gym to practice my stand up. Should a fighter use the paleo diet?
I'm amazed Art de Vany hasn't yet come up in this thread yet. He pretty much covers all this stuff. Shame his website has become a little commercialised. All content used to be free and open. I used to check it regularly years ago but haven't been back since it all changed.
I'm sure his original essays on the evolutionary diet are still freely available somewhere on the web. It all makes basic sense to me. Humans around for x hundred thousand years living on a hunter-gatherer diet (high fat, high protein, low carb, low sugar), agriculture only around for 10,000 years, therefore not enough time for human bodies to evolve to handle the agricultural diet (hence lactose intolerance, celiac etc...).
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO