Fasting

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Rome came much later than the paleolithic

Yet by your own charts as of Wikipedia, the life expentancy in Rome was about the same as the Upper Paleolithic.

And this would make sense, given that there were no significant medical breakthroughs between 10,000 BC and Roman times, plus of course the chance of pandemic disease had grown drastically given the closer cohabitation of humans and livestock and humans living in much higer densities.

[Patroklos]

Organized warfare was in vogue as well.

[Wiglaf]

As I recall paleolithic stretch back a lot farther than 10,000 years. Much much farther back. Like 2 million yrs up until 10,000. So, there's a big difference in the scope of the time periods we seem to be talking about.

If you go back 500,000 years ago and tell me a lot of people, excluding infant deaths, last to 50's, I will call BS on that just based on fossil record.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


That requirement could be based, and probably was based, on your ability to physically serve. It doesn't really mater how many people made it to 45, the point was if you did you didn't meet the legions requirements.

Really? So why allow a 40 year old to join?

Under your "used up" theory, what really would make the critical difference between a 40 year old in 100BC and a 45 year old? Why not bar anyone above 25 from joining?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
As I recall paleolithic stretch back a lot farther than 10,000 years. Much much farther back. Like 2 million yrs up until 10,000. So, there's a big difference in the scope of the time periods we seem to be talking about.

If you go back 500,000 years ago and tell me a lot of people, excluding infant deaths, last to 50's, I will call BS on that just based on fossil record.

Except that there were no modern humans 500,000 years ago. Modern humans, our species, is about 100,000 years old.

Comparing Home Sapiens Sapiens to Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus isn't particularly worthwhile for his debate.

[DirtyMartini]

Re: Re: Fasting

Originally posted by Thoth


competent natural health practitioner

oxymoron

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia

Starting back up, I eased into it by eating a banana first and then a soup meal some hours later.

I should have mentioned this. You did exactly right, Alinestra. Beginning with a heavy meal can lead to "protein shock" which in rare circumstances result in death. Eat fruit, vegies, soups, etc. at first. No meat for awhile.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


I should have mentioned this. You did exactly right, Alinestra. Beginning with a heavy meal can lead to "protein shock" which in rare circumstances result in death. Eat fruit, vegies, soups, etc. at first. No meat for awhile.

more BS

Main Entry: protein shock
Function: noun
: a severe reaction produced by the injection of protein (as bacterial, animal, or plant proteins or protein-containing organic extracts) and marked by chill, fever, bronchial spasm, acute emphysema, and vomiting and diarrhea



injection not ingestion

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by GePap


Except that there were no modern humans 500,000 years ago. Modern humans, our species, is about 100,000 years old.

Comparing Home Sapiens Sapiens to Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus isn't particularly worthwhile for his debate.

Maybe I missed it, but has there been any conclusive evidence on your part that modern humans survived often well into their 50s on a "paleolithic diet?" Surely the romans were not all vegans.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
So do you exercise? You seem to think starving yourself is the only way to feel good, and you seem scrawny from your picture. I think you need to ditch the loony diet, hit the weights, and hit up Popeye's every once in a while.

Ironically my profile pic was taken after I'd hiked for 3 hours along a beach, I left before dawn in the middle of winter and it was about -7C hahah. The part which was possibly foolish, was skipping breakfast .

The chicks will fawn over you and ****.

I don't think you quite understand this celibacy thing . Then again a lot of people probably don't .

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

Maybe I missed it, but has there been any conclusive evidence on your part that modern humans survived often well into their 50s on a "paleolithic diet?" Surely the romans were not all vegans.

Lets see what is wrong with that statement:

1. The only "evidence" you have provided of anything, is average life expectancy. You have not been able to explain away my counterarguement that child mortality would be mainly responsible for the low number and the chart you showed clearly showed that even in the last 100 years the main gain in life expectancy has come from making sure more people make it past childhood.
After all, according to your wiki link, average life expectancy only went up in the last few centuries, given that Medieval England has the same one as the Upper Paleolithic.

Improvements in sanitation, childhood vaccinations, and antibiotics (the main reasons for our much greater average life expectancy) have nothing really to do with a discussion on diet. Why you even brought the statistic up in this debate is beyond me.

2. Who ever said that the main paleolithic diet is Vegan?
It most certainly was not. Those paleolithic societies that have survived until now are clearly omnivores - they don't turn down food of any kind if they can find it, but their diets are clearly mainly plant based.

Man would probably survive on a Vegan diet better than he would on a purely carnivorous diet, but we were meant to be omnivorous and eat both.

[Wiglaf]

The only "evidence" you have provided of anything, is average life expectancy. You have not been able to explain away my counterarguement that child mortality would be mainly responsible for the low number and the chart you showed clearly showed that even in the last 100 years the main gain in life expectancy has come from making sure more people make it past childhood.
After all, according to your wiki link, average life expectancy only went up in the last few centuries, given that Medieval England has the same one as the Upper Paleolithic.

Improvements in sanitation, childhood vaccinations, and antibiotics (the main reasons for our much greater average life expectancy) have nothing really to do with a discussion on diet. Why you even brought the statistic up in this debate is beyond me.

Blake's initial statement,
"In any case, I would say that in Paleolithic times, it would have been not at all unusual for people to only eat once a day, or even go for 2-3 days without eating. Like they eat for a few days when they have a good kill, then go hungry for a few days."

Is a bad example because we have so little evidence that modern humans in this time period lived lives half as healthy as ours, especially past age of 30 or 40. This is due to a million factors, diet, hygiene, etc. Point is, it is impossible to take this comment seriously because no one has presented evidence the quality of life was remotely good by that age.

Ironically my profile pic was taken after I'd hiked for 3 hours along a beach, I left before dawn in the middle of winter and it was about -7C hahah. The part which was possibly foolish, was skipping breakfast

You need muscle mass, more than running/cardio, since your diet is sapping your muscles.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

Is a bad example because we have so little evidence that modern humans in this time period lived lives half as healthy as ours, especially past age of 30 or 40. This is due to a million factors, diet, hygiene, etc. Point is, it is impossible to take this comment seriously because no one has presented evidence the quality of life was remotely good by that age.

There have been plenty of studies of paleolithic peoples, given that peoples with paleolithic lifestyles have survived well into modern times. Hell, Australian aborigenes had the same general lifestyle and tech in 1750AD that they had in 17,500BC.

I hihgly recommend you read In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan.

It deals with this topic and his discussions, and the experiments he talks about, like Kerin O'Deas experiment with Aborigenes in 1982 is very illuminarting.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
You need muscle mass, more than running/cardio, since your diet is sapping your muscles.

Wiggy you don't know how much I eat . For the record, I eat two full meals, just in rapid succession - 3 hours apart.

Anyway my weight and body mass index has been approximately identical for the last 10 years, regardless of diet and exercise.

And in any case I don't need muscle mass, more muscle just means you need to eat more to sustain the mass and haul it around, where's the point in that?

I don't even need the intimidation factor because for some reason people assume I know some form of martial arts hahah (must be the aura of calm assurance, it's surreal I tell you!).

[Ben Kenobi]

Paleolithic humans were lucky to live into their 30s.

Gepap is right. Half of stone age humans made it to 50.

Over 15 percent made it to 70.

The reason their life expectancy was so short was that only 80 percent survived to the age of 5.