GOOD

GOOD Asks the Experts: Is The "Paleolithic Diet" Really Better?

Should we try to eat like an early hominin? And what did our evolutionary ancestors actually eat, anyway? GOOD talks to four experts.

Since the beginning of civilization, humans have longed to return to a more primitive, simpler way of life. As soon as we had cities, we told stories about escaping them. The concept of the Appalachian Trail, organic agriculture, and Slow Food all arose from a dissatisfaction with technological advances. Now, as it becomes clearer and clearer that the "diseases of affluence"—obesity, diabetes, heart disease—are intrinsically linked to a modern diet and a sedentary way of life, it's time to consider a radical future for food.


What if that future involves going back in time—before the discovery of petroleum, before processed foods, and even before we cultivated starchy carbohydrates in what we now call agriculture? In the decades that followed S. Boyd Eaton's publication of "Paleolithic Nutrition" in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1985, the "paleo diet" has been touted as a solution to our modern ills.

Before we turn back the clock, let’s take a look at what it meant to eat like an early hominin. In the two and half million years since the dawn of the Paleolithic period, our ancestors evolved bigger brains, which required dietary changes and probably required cooking, as Richard Wrangham persuasively argues in his book Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. Evolution shaped our digestive system: We have a voluminous small intestine and a short lower gut adapted to make better use of meats and cooked or processed grains. Mutations allow us to produce lactase so we can drink mammary fluids (and eat cheeses) beyond infancy. We're more resistant to certain damaging compounds created when food is heated and poorly equipped to resist toxins found in raw meats.

Still, questions remain: Was eating during the Paleolithic period really healthier than the modern human diet? Or is the problem with highly processed, energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods? In other words, is the “paleo diet” especially healthy, or is our current diet just especially bad? To find out, I spoke with four experts for a scholarly, historical taste test of the Paleolithic diet.

Bill Leonard is an anthropologist at Northwestern University who studies physiology and nutrition in ancient humans and traditional cultures alive today. His latest paper looks at evolutionary patterns in diet and activity to understand modern health problems.

Peter Ungar is an evolutionary biologist and paleoanthropoligist at the University of Arkansas who reconstructs ancestral diets using dental morphology and microwear. His latest book is called Mammal Teeth.

Amanda Henry is a paleobiologist studying the evolution of the human diet at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. Her latest research examined plant microfossils in Neanderthal teeth for evidence of cooking.

Katharine Milton is a physical anthropologist who studies the dietary ecology of primates at the University of California at Berkeley. She has published numerous papers on modern and ancient human diets.

GOOD: What do you think our ancestors were eating during the Paleolithic period?

Bill Leonard: When you’re talking about any evolutionary-designed human diet, it depends where you look. If you set our ancestral diet as the period of the last common ancestors of humans with apes, you’re going to get a very different perspective than if you set it at the origins of the genus Homo at 1.5 to 2 million years ago.

Peter Ungar: In general, over a long period of time, our ancestors developed an ability to take a broader and broader range of things into the diet. Tools, including fire, gave them access to an unprecedented variety of foods, which meant they could live in more places and find something everywhere they went. That is not true of chimpanzees, our nearest relatives.

Amanda Henry: Although there tends to be this lingering image of Neanderthals as living in the Ice Age, where it was cold and there were no plants, more recent research paints a more complex picture and even suggests that our ancestors predominantly ate plant foods.

Katharine Milton: Do you really think ancestral humans went out and said, “We’re going out to get some French fries today”? No, they said, “With any luck, praying to the sun God, or whomever we revere, we’re hoping to get something to eat.” They don’t care what it is—a lizard, an elephant, a bunch of fruit, roots, a bunch of grubs. The human diet has always been whatever you can get your mitts on that won’t kill you and you can digest. That’s it. Simple as pie.

GOOD: When you look at popular representations of early humans—in the American Museum of Natural History’s diorama of Neanderthals, in Gary Larson’s "The Far Side," or in books advocating a paleo diet—meat often appears central to the diet. How important is meat?

Leonard: Although there’s an extraordinary range of variation, based on the climate and the environment, hunter-gatherers get a fair amount of meat in their diet. We require a diet that is more energy-dense than other primates and historically, we may have reached that point by incorporating more meat. It’s reflected in evolutionary changes in our face, our teeth, and in our gastrointestinal tract. Indeed, the GI tract of modern humans looks more like a carnivore's than a large primate's. Because early humans increasingly used tools to hunt, we don't show the same kinds of dental adaptations as modern carnivores.

Ungar: Two and half million years ago, we see enamel on the teeth of our ancestors get thinner; the teeth become smaller and more crested. The teeth can wear down and you get sharp edges that you didn’t have before. So we start to see ability to shear and slice with early Homo, which could indicate the consumption of some tougher foods such as meat.

Henry: Looking at plant micro-remains—tiny residue of plants—on the mineralized plaque of Neanderthal remains, it appears they were eating date fruits, starchy tubers, and wild relatives of barley. Not only were they eating them, they were cooking them too.

Milton: Humans evolved to eat a high-quality diet, but that doesn’t mean eating a lot of meat—especially today. Even the Eskimos and Inuits don’t eat a lot of meat. They eat marine mammal fat. No one eats a lot of meat. The only people who eat way too much meat are Americans, who are addicted to eating huge steaks, chops, and roasts.

GOOD: How much diversity was there in the diet and how much food processing was involved?

Leonard: There are lots of ways you can improve dietary quality—eating meat, cooking, or processing starchy carbohydrates. These are all human strategies for making food digestible and nutrients more bio-available. To argue that meats are the only strategy is as misguided as thinking that humans were evolved to be folivores, entirely vegetarian.

Ungar: While there’s increasing evidence of meat consumption from the first evidence of butchery 2.5 million years ago to around 1.8 million years ago, when we see sites with lot of bones, we still don’t know how that breaks down in terms of the ratio of meat to plant material. What we do know is that no single food provided a panacea.

Henry: In the early Upper Paleolithic periods, there’s evidence early humans were making flours and pastes. Even earlier, the Neanderthals in the Middle Paleolithic were cooking. That’s some of the oldest cooking—technically, heating in the presence of water—where they were taking a raw starch and turning it into something your body can process.

Milton: No matter where they evolved, our diet changed continuously, just like if you’re a primate living in the tropical forest. Every day a monkey in a tree does not eat the same thing; it may eat four or five kinds of leaves, one or two fruits, maybe some flowers. The next day, there’s 50 to 75 percent turnover in what that same monkey is eating and I assume that Paleolithic humans were the same way. Each day, they need to take in a sufficiency of good quality energetic substrate (sugars and starches) and enough protein—say 70 grams or so—to meet their daily requirements for amino acids.

GOOD: Judging by the proliferation of diet books, we’re really fascinated with the paleo diet. Some people swear by it and say it’s best to eat foods humans evolved to eat. Should I try it?

Leonard: In the modern, industrial world, we have become ever better at creating diets that are dense in calories and don’t require a lot of energy to procure them. No one recommendation is going to fit everybody, so the challenge is to find what works for you individually, and, at the same time, what fits the broad nutritional requirements of our species.

Ungar: There was no single Paleolithic diet. Still, I think these are valuable diets in that they remind us what we shouldn’t be eating. Our ancestors didn’t have the processed foods we have today. To say what we should be eating is more difficult, but I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that australopiths did not eat corn dogs and drink milkshakes.

Henry: The diet may be perfectly good, but its theoretical underpinnings are wrong. The Paleolithic period is very long and very varied. Are you talking about the Middle Stone Age of Africa? Or the Upper Paleolithic of Europe. They were eating completely different things. We’re in a quest to understand that, but, to say, this is how you have to eat because this is how our ancestors ate is a fallacy.

Milton: While I don’t know what the paleo diet is, what I do know is that if you’re talking about trying to eat unprocessed foods, a high percentage of fruits and vegetables, and only as much animal source as you need to meet protein and essential amino acid requirements, then that’s a good diet, especially if you get up and around for an hour each day out in the fresh air.

Top illustration: Sara Saedi/GOOD; Second illustration via Harper's Magazine. Third chart showing monkey via Katharine Milton in Scientific American. 1993:269; Fourth photo of Neanderthal Diorama in the American Museum of Natural History, New York via American Anthropologist ©American Anthropological Association; Fifth illustration of grasses found cave paintings in Parpalió, Spain, Montgaudier, France, and Trilobite, France, via The Nature of Paleolithic Art. Bottom photo (cc) Flickr user Lord Jim.

Articles
via Collection of the New-York Historical Society / Wikimedia Commons

Fredrick Douglass was born into slavery in 1818. At the age of 10 he was given to the Auld family.

As a child, he worked as a house slave and was able to learn to read and write, and he attempted to teach his fellow slaves the same skills.

At the age of 15, he was given to Thomas Auld, a cruel man who beat and starved his slaves and thwarted any opportunity for them to practice their faith or to learn to read or write.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture
via Thomas Ledia / Wikimedia Commons

On April 20, 1889 at the Braunau am Inn, in Upper Austria Salzburger located at Vorstadt 15, Alois and Klara Hitler brought a son into the world. They named him Adolph.

Little did they know he would grow up to be one of the greatest forces of evil the world has ever known.

The Hitlers moved out of the Braunau am Inn when Adolph was three, but the three-story butter-colored building still stands. It has been the subject of controversy for seven decades.

via Thomas Ledia / Wikimedia Commons

The building was a meeting place for Nazi loyalists in the 1930s and '40s. After World War II, the building has become an informal pilgrimage site for neo-Nazis and veterans to glorify the murderous dictator.

The building was a thorn in the side to local government and residents to say the least.

RELATED: He photographed Nazi atrocities and buried the negatives. The unearthed images are unforgettable.

For years it was owned by Gerlinde Pommer, a descendant of the original owners. The Austrian government made numerous attempts to purchase it from her, but to no avail. The building has served many purposes, a school, a library, and a makeshift museum.

In 1989, a stone from the building was inscribed with:

"For Peace, Freedom

and Democracy.

Never Again Fascism.

Millions of Dead Remind [us]."

via Jo Oh / Wikimedia Commons

For three decades it was home to an organization that offered support and integration assistance for disabled people. But in 2011, the organization vacated the property because Pommer refused to bring it up to code.

RELATED: 'High Castle' producers destroyed every swastika used on the show and the video is oh-so satisfying

In 2017, the fight between the government and Pommer ended with it seizing the property. Authorities said it would get a "thorough architectural remodeling is necessary to permanently prevent the recognition and the symbolism of the building."

Now, the government intends to turn it into a police station which will surely deter any neo-Nazis from hanging around the building.

Austria has strict anti-Nazi laws that aim to prohibit any potential Nazi revival. The laws state that anyone who denies, belittles, condones or tries to justify the Nazi genocide or other Nazi crimes against humanity shall be punished with imprisonment for one year up to ten years.

In Austria the anti-Nazi laws are so strict one can go to prison for making the Nazi hand salute or saying "Heil Hitler."

"The future use of the house by the police should send an unmistakable signal that the role of this building as a memorial to the Nazis has been permanently revoked," Austria's IInterior Minister, Wolfgang Peschorn said in a statement.

The house is set to be redesigned following an international architectural competition.

Communities
via Chela Horsdal / Twitter

Amazon's "The Man in the High Castle" debuted the first episode of its final season last week.

The show is loosely based on an alternative history novel by Philip K. Dick that postulates what would happen if Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan controlled the United States after being victorious in World War II.

Keep Reading Show less
Politics
via Mike Mozart / Flickr

Chick-fil-A is the third-largest fast food chain in America, behind McDonald's and Starbucks, raking in over $10 billion a year.

But for years, the company has faced boycotts for supporting anti-LGBT charities, including the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and the Paul Anderson Youth Home.

The Salvation Army faced criticism after a leader in the organization implied that gay people "deserve to die" and the company also came under fire after refusing to offer same-sex couples health insurance. But the organization swears it's evolving on such issues.

via Thomas Hawk / Flickr

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes explicitly announced it was anti gay marriage in a recent "Statement of Faith."

God instituted marriage between one man and one woman as the foundation of the family and the basic structure of human society. For this reason, we believe that marriage is exclusively the union of one man and one woman.

The Paul Anderson Youth Home teaches boys that homosexuality is wrong and that same-sex marriage is "rage against Jesus Christ and His values."

RELATED: The 1975's singer bravely kissed a man at a Dubai concert to protest anti-LGBT oppression

In 2012, Chick-fil-A's CEO, Dan Cathy, made anti same-sex marriage comments on a radio broadcast:

I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

But the chicken giant has now decided to change it's says its charitable donation strategy because it's bad for business...Not because being homophobic is wrong.

The company recently lost several bids to provide concessions in U.S. airports. A pop-up shop in England was told it would not be renewed after eight days following LGBTQ protests.

Chick-fil-A also has plans to expand to Boston, Massachusetts where its mayor, Thomas Menino, pledged to ban the restaurant from the city.

via Wikimedia Commons

"There's no question we know that, as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are," Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer Tim Tassopoulos told Bisnow. "There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message."

RELATED: Alan Turing will appear on the 50-pound note nearly 70 years after being persecuted for his sexuality

Instead, the Chick-fil-A Foundation plans to give $9 million to organizations that support education and fight homelessness. Which is commendable regardless of the company's troubled past.

"If Chick-Fil-A is serious about their pledge to stop holding hands with divisive anti-LGBTQ activists, then further transparency is needed regarding their deep ties to organizations like Focus on the Family, which exist purely to harm LGBTQ people and families," Drew Anderson, GLAAD's director of campaigns and rapid response, said in a statement.

Chick-fil-A's decision to back down from contributing to anti-LGBT charities shows the power that people have to fight back against companies by hitting them where it really hurts — the pocket book.

The question remains: If you previously avoided Chick-fil-A because it supported anti-LGBT organizations, is it now OK to eat there? Especially when Popeye's chicken sandwich is so good people will kill for it?

Lifestyle

Oh, irony. You are having quite a day.

The Italian region of Veneto, which includes the city of Venice, is currently experiencing historic flooding. Venice Mayor Luigi Brugnaro has stated that the flooding is a direct result of climate change, with the tide measuring the highest level in 50 years. The city (which is actually a collection of 100 islands in a lagoon—hence its famous canal streets), is no stranger to regular flooding, but is currently on the brink of declaring a state of emergency as waters refuse to recede.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet