Posted: May 08, 2010 8:00 am
I'm not saying in this argument against the so-called "Paleo Diet" that the raw, natural form of most of the foods obtained weren't healthy. There are TONS of healthy foods that many different hunter-gatherer societies consumed (though many times not enough to sustain the basic functions of their bodies), most of which we continue to consume today (though processed foods are higher on the grocery list than, say, nuts, fresh vegetables, fresh fruits, etc). But to claim that they were WAY healthier and happier than we are today? Preposterous! Again, you must also consider the other variables, not just the diet, but the agricultural revolutions ultimately lead us to where we are today in our technological age.
I have studied that those who lived in communities based largely upon agriculture and not free-based, nomadic hunting and gathering tended to have shorter life spans than their hunter-gatherer contemporaries. However, this was more based on the fact of poor hygiene, cramped quarters (aided in the spread of diseases), living closely with domesticated animals (created diseases), and just their general ignorance of germs and bacteria -- not necessarily because the food they consumed was not nutritious.
What I find to be particularly hilarious is when I wonder where these individuals who follow the "Paleo Diet" obtain their food. They don't live out in the wild and hunt their own boar or unearth their own tubers and pick their own legumes (most of them, anyway...I'm sure that there's at least a couple out there) from the dense forests in their environment. They either a) buy their food from the grocery stores, or b) grow their own food. In either case, THEY UTILIZE AGRICULTURAL METHODS TO OBTAIN THEIR FOOD. hmmmm *scratches chin
* Hypocritical/ironic, no? 
I have studied that those who lived in communities based largely upon agriculture and not free-based, nomadic hunting and gathering tended to have shorter life spans than their hunter-gatherer contemporaries. However, this was more based on the fact of poor hygiene, cramped quarters (aided in the spread of diseases), living closely with domesticated animals (created diseases), and just their general ignorance of germs and bacteria -- not necessarily because the food they consumed was not nutritious.
What I find to be particularly hilarious is when I wonder where these individuals who follow the "Paleo Diet" obtain their food. They don't live out in the wild and hunt their own boar or unearth their own tubers and pick their own legumes (most of them, anyway...I'm sure that there's at least a couple out there) from the dense forests in their environment. They either a) buy their food from the grocery stores, or b) grow their own food. In either case, THEY UTILIZE AGRICULTURAL METHODS TO OBTAIN THEIR FOOD. hmmmm *scratches chin
* Hypocritical/ironic, no?