or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › Traditional Foods › Paleo/NT, Is Eating Dairy Natural?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Paleo/NT, Is Eating Dairy Natural? - Page 4

post #61 of 127
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcarwyn View Post
What you guys are forgetting is that Dr Price compared people eating their traditional agrarian diet ( with soaked grains and cultured milk etc) to people eating a modern diet. He did NOT compare people eating a agrarian diet with people eating a hunter/gatherer/palaeolithic diet.

I think we all agree that eating fermented/soaked grains and cultured raw milk is better then eating hoo-hoo's and pizza. The question being asked in this discussion is rather, can we find evidence that eating no diary and grains might be healthier across the board then even eating them modified by fermenting and soaking...

Tanya
THANK YOU Tanya!!

That is EXACTLY what I am trying to determine. I agree with Tara's post (And Marie's of course.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tboroson
I see the Paleolithic theories as ideal. I see NT and it's ilk as being an intermediary step.
ITA.
post #62 of 127
I think it's quite a leap to say that all of the differences between paleo people and neo people are due to dietary changes. There were also great social changes taking place that put larger groups of people together in stationary places for longer periods, necessitating different hygeinic practices and allowing the spread of disease more easily than among the more nomadic peoples.

It's also easy to say that when a person is allowed a variety of foods, that person will likely be healthier than a person who is living on a single or very limited group of foods. Early agrarian diets were very reliant on whatever you could grow, which was greatly limited by climate and availability of crops.

I don't disagree with the archeological evidence of greater health in the paleo era, I just think that it's simplistic to blame the entire change on dairy and grains.
post #63 of 127
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharondio
<snip>necessitating different hygeinic practices and allowing the spread of disease more easily than among the more nomadic peoples.
But they weren't communicable diseases, it was cavities, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis, etc. They didn't "get" these disease from hygeine problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharondio
It's also easy to say that when a person is allowed a variety of foods, that person will likely be healthier than a person who is living on a single or very limited group of foods.
But they weren't & there's proof. The Paleo people ate meat (including insects), fruits, veggies & some nuts, that's pretty "limited," it was when a "variety of foods" (diary & grains) were introduced that their health declined.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharondio
I don't disagree with the archeological evidence of greater health in the paleo era, I just think that it's simplistic to blame the entire change on dairy and grains.
How can you disagree that Homo sapiens sapiens, as we are today, don't have the proper digestive system for milk as adults?
post #64 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metasequoia View Post
But they weren't & there's proof. The Paleo people ate meat (including insects), fruits, veggies & some nuts, that's pretty "limited," it was when a "variety of foods" (diary & grains) were introduced that their health declined.
I am in favor of the paleodiet, but I think that this particular argument is flawed. Hunter-gatherers ate many many diverse species of plants, animals, nuts, etc (I remember reading from one source that they could eat 70 different foods in a day with no problem). Agrarian farmers probably ate predominantly one staple grain crop, perhaps with some dairy to supplement. Not even near the diversity of the hunter-gatherers
post #65 of 127
:

shouldn't we have a smilie where the face isn't munching on a refined grain, dosed in dairy fat such as this one?
post #66 of 127
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pam_and_Abigail View Post
:

shouldn't we have a smilie where the face isn't munching on a refined grain, dosed in dairy fat such as this one?
post #67 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pam_and_Abigail View Post
:

shouldn't we have a smilie where the face isn't munching on a refined grain, dosed in dairy fat such as this one?
post #68 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by kallyn View Post
I am in favor of the paleodiet, but I think that this particular argument is flawed. Hunter-gatherers ate many many diverse species of plants, animals, nuts, etc (I remember reading from one source that they could eat 70 different foods in a day with no problem). Agrarian farmers probably ate predominantly one staple grain crop, perhaps with some dairy to supplement. Not even near the diversity of the hunter-gatherers
Yes, I agree. The palaeo diets were varied and SEASONAL, which is a part of this discussion I'd like to also address. The agriculturally based diets were more limited and because of advances in food storage, they became less seasonally based as well.

I think it was mentioned above, but I wanted to reiterate. Caloric output estimates show that our neolithic ancestors burned far more calories, despite the illusion of a more sedentary lifestyle, than those burned by the palaeolithic people (I do have a few studies for this in my bibliography, because my advisor and I had a few discussion on this particular topic...) This is a rather new insight...it had always been assumed that the hunter-gatherer palaeolithic people had to work harder for their food, but studies done on aboriginal cultures in Indonesia, Australia & Africa show that actually less time/energy is spent on food procurement per capita than those who grow their food and raise animals for meat/wool/transportation & labor. This is just an aside, but an interesting point. Someone suggested that the disease pattern we see in the neolithic individuals is because they were more sedentary, but this appears not to be the case. (OUR sedentary lifestyle, however, is a big problem...I think most people agree with this...)

Marie
post #69 of 127
I've read every single post on this thread. This is soooo fascinating. I'm especially enjoying the dialogue between Marie and Kelly. Marie, you are obviously well-informed and I have learned a lot about the differences between the paleolithic era and neolithic era diets from your posts. The more you can post, the better! Kelly, I'm glad you're making counter-points that are giving me a more balanced view. That was a good point about the restrictions to access of food due to patriarchical structures introduced soon after the beginning of agrarian societies which is pretty much a universal phenomenon during roughly the same period of time if I remember correctly (I taught Civilizations to undergrads, but I'm actually Ph.D. in philosophy).

I keep going back and forth about the dairy. Ds didn't get much dairy from 2-3 yo, but he's back on it in full force exactly because of my interest in NT and traditional foods. I'm still confused about this issue. One aspect is where is ds supposed to get enough calcium if not from dairy? And isn't cheese and yogurt better tolerated than milk alone? With no evidence, I sometimes think we koreans are so short because we don't get enough calcium in our diets. And because I'm Korean, no grains to me feels like death. What does one eat with kimchi then? Joking aside, asians do enjoy health and longevity today despite having white rice as a primary staple. That must count for something.

One minor point, isn't it a debate whether we have neanderthal in our blood? In the biological sciences (which I studied as an undergrad), we learned two possible theories: 1. humans killed off neanderthals through competition and/or violence, or 2. neanderthals disappeared as a species because of inter-mixing with homon sapiens.

Thank you for such a great discussion. I still need clarity about a number of issues, but I think from this discussion I'm going to start taking the paleo diet much more seriously.
post #70 of 127
Am i the only one that believes in the sophisticated to primitive theory ? :P

all joking aside, I think there is a large element of truth to the paleolithic diet philosophy.... simply because the two widest causes of allergy are gluten and casein, gluey sticky hard to digest proteins. But look how fast anti biotic resistant strains of bacteria have adapted to anti biotics ? I believe its possible to adapt, and weston prices photographs of certain peoples... just look at the swiss for instance, show as proof of concept that it can be healthy to include dairy. They say a large part of our genome is unchanged since the switch, but they also say that we share some 90% or more of genes with rats. Large is a relative term when discussing genes.

I feel better when I don't eat dairy, but I occasionaly eat raw goat and sheep cheese. I dont think i could give them up either.....

I think with proper preparation (soaking, fermenting etc) and enough probiotics, you can digest almost anything :P

Personally though I feel better when I dont eat gluten or dairy. Im not sure which is worse either for me........ and im undecided about eggs. I went on an elimination diet once like 1 year ago and it turned out that I felt reactions to just about EVERYTHING.

I think its interesting though to find a community like this based around traditional foods, especially weston price. THere really aren't many across the whole net I have found, which is why im here! (note, its not because im a mother harhar :P)
post #71 of 127
If you don't mind fielding another question Marie, did paleolithic people live in cold weather? If so, what did they eat seasonally in winter? Here we are still eating organic strawberries in late October, and I'm thinking it's a good thing.
post #72 of 127
I was wodering that just a little while ago, too. Were humans were unable to live in cold climates before they mastered agriculture? I live in a place with a very short growing season, and I can't imagine eating seasonally when my garden is covered with a foot of snow...
post #73 of 127
Palaeolithic people lived in cold climates, but not arctic. Remember that in over 500,000 years of history, there were changes in climate. They had to adapt to Ice Ages, especially the last great one. In fact, the Mesolithic, a transitional period between the Neolithic and the Palaeolithic, is the period when the ice caps are receeding and food sources/availability are changing... the stone technology that defines "palaeolithic" then changes to meet the new needs, and thus we have the "mesolithic" which means the "stone age in between" (TMI...sorry)

There have been no palaeolithic finds in the British Isles (well, that is debated, but I won't go into it), but mainland Europe, yes. Even in the northern reaches of the continent. Africa, Russia (but southern & in mountainous regions), China, SE Asia, South Asia (Himalaya foothills and in the hills of SW India, but probably the entire subcontinent), Indonesia and of course the Near East (predominantly along the Levantine coast, but that is just where the vast majority of archaeological exploration has taken place, so that may be co-incidental.) In Europe -- Greece, the Balkans, France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Germany. I think Scandanavia too, but I may be wrong. Think regions with mountains with caves, a lot of water sources, good natural supplies of meat and plants (not desertic), and ways to travel (i.e. valleys or low mountain passes...) between regions.

What would seasonal eating look like in snow bound areas? Meat, I think. OR they would have moved south as the food became more restricted. Both options are viable, depending on location. We see both in the archaeological record, but migrations of specific individuals is not reconstructable in the archaeological record, so it is just a theory.

The Neanderthal question: yes there are two theories about the Neanderthal demise. (I told you I was simplifying...) Assimilation or extinction. There are DNA studies going on right now, and that will help answer that question. The answer may be BOTH happened (in some regions assimilation, in some extinction), but this will be big news once the DNA explorations are finished. I'm very interested for the results. I personally think that the strong regionalism of the palaeolithic period may be the foundation for genetic variation in things like blood type, skin/hair/eye color, some genetic conditions, etc.

I want to stress something: while the neolithic brought to us dairy and readily available grains/legums, only the DAIRY is a new introduction. People were eating the grains and legumes seasonally (i.e. not all the time, and in great variety) so I don't personally think eating some grains/beans/rice is a bad thing or in deviation from a good palaeo based diet. It is the dairy that I see as a particular problem. But not necessarily in children (unless they show allergic symptoms)...of course, a long nursing relationship of mom's milk is the absolute best. But as adult palaeolithic people, we would've lost our source of milk for good, and that is why our ability to generate the enzymes to process it go away. There might be a small variation in who produces enzymes by where your ancestry is from, but the enzymes are made for you to ingest MOM'S milk, not cows milk -- they are very different nutritionally -- human milk = higher in sugar; cow's milk = lower in sugar, higher in protein. I can't remember the differences in detail, but it is obvious that cow's milk has different stuff...it grows baby cows into several hundred lb large animals in little over a year. We grow babies, maybe, 20-25 lbs in a year... Cow milk is based on one food, grass (ideally) -- our milk is enriched and formed by omnivorous eating. You get the point.... our body digests mom's milk just fine, but cow's milk is, well, a whole 'nother beast. I want to add here that I think the NT goes a long way to HELPING us digest milk...it adds bacteria to the food that does SOME of what our body can't. So sure, small quantities of kefir, yogurt, cottage cheese, etc. might be just fine. Small quantities.

How do you get calcium without it? Green foods, fish (small fish w/bones) like sardines --- consumed in fairly large quantities in many traditional societies, nuts & seeds (sesame seed are a great source.) I take a cal/mag supplement (a whole food based one) and give one to my children. Can't hurt since we don't eat dairy (I seem to have a pretty serious allergy, my son is showing symptoms, my husband seems to tolerate it OK, and my daughter is on the boob-juice.)

Rice -- rice isn't an strong allergy source. Rice is a variation of GRASS and is low in protein. I wouldn't worry too much about rice in your diet (brown rice = less of a glycemic index, and if you are worried about blood sugar, you should eat it in moderation)... I personally don't feel that rice is something you have to give up on the palaeo diet. It is a wild growing plant in Asia and was used by palaeo peoples there before cultivation. It was probably the earliest cultivated food (there is debate on this...I won't go into it.)

OK...I have to shower. I'm enjoying the discussion. I'm gonna post a recipe (no dairy) that I made last night that was yummy in a separate entry to this thread.

Marie
post #74 of 127
Just so you guys don't think I'm "all work and no play"

the BEST dairy free/wheat free cookies ever...

2 cups rolled oats
2/3 cups almonds
1 ts baking powder
1/4 ts sea salt
1/2 ts ground cinnamon
1/4 ts ground nutmeg
1 1/2 cups mashed ripe bananas (3 bananas)
1/4 cup of coconut oil
1 ts pure vanilla
3/4 of additions -- coconut, raisins or carob chips or chocolate chips if you'd like....

preheat oven to 350
lightly oil the baking sheet

grind oats and almonds to a coarse powder in a food processor, pour into a large mixing bowl

stir in baking powder, salt, cinnamon, and nutmeg

in a separte bowl or food procesor, beat together bananas, oil, and vanilla until smooth and creamy. Add banana mixture and raisins (or whatever) to oat mixture

Mix well

drop cookie dough by the tablespoon onto the baking sheet

13-16 minutes or until bottoms are brown

3 dozen


Marie
post #75 of 127
Btw according to this : http://www.westonaprice.org/children/humanmilk.html

Fat and cholesterol are very important components in human milk. In fact, the milk from a healthy mother has about 50 to 60 percent of its energy (kilocalories) as fat.1 The cholesterol in human milk supplies an infant with close to six times the amount most adults consume from their food.1

I think sheeps milk is supposedly the closest.
post #76 of 127
From that article

"Studies of milk from 224 Danish mothers showed that they produced milk with a very wide range of fat content. The average amount of fat was 39 grams per liter of milk and the range was from 18 grams to 89 grams per liter of milk. That is the equivalent of an average milk fat content of 3.9 percent with the range between 1.8 percent and 8.9 percent. This would mean that some babies would be getting the equivalent of 2 percent milk and some would be getting the equivalent of table cream, with the average infant getting the equivalent of whole Guernsey or Jersey milk. Studies have shown that the average levels of fat in the milk of Canadian women to be 3.2 percent, and the fat levels in two different areas in China to be either the same at 3.2 percent or somewhat higher at 3.8 percent."


I stand corrected on the fat content. I have always read that human milk was lower in fat than cow's milk, thereby necessitating human babies to feed more frequently. I'll amend my post above.

Thanks
Marie
post #77 of 127
Here is a nice comparison between cow's milk and human milk.

http://www.saanendoah.com/compare.html

Marie

PS. I know we all agree that human milk is better for babies. I'm just putting it out there for a reference.
post #78 of 127
And another link directly addressing the difficulty the human body has with the digestion of wheat and dairy.

http://www.greatplainslaboratory.com/book/bk8sect1.html

Marie
post #79 of 127
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marieandchris View Post
And another link directly addressing the difficulty the human body has with the digestion of wheat and dairy.

http://www.greatplainslaboratory.com/book/bk8sect1.html

Marie
Wow, that's crazy about the schizophrenia! Great article Marie!
post #80 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metasequoia View Post
But they weren't communicable diseases, it was cavities, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis, etc. They didn't "get" these disease from hygeine problems.
Except there is growing evidence that many diseases we thought were not caused by infection, actually are. Tooth decay has been shown to be related to bacterial levels in the mouth sometimes passed between people. Ulcers are from a bacterial infection. Cervical cancer is caused by HPV.

Quote:
But they weren't & there's proof. The Paleo people ate meat (including insects), fruits, veggies & some nuts, that's pretty "limited," it was when a "variety of foods" (diary & grains) were introduced that their health declined.
But they didn't maintain the hunter-gatherer diet when they introduced grain and dairy. The diet was replaced, not supplemented.

I seem to recall reading about the variety of foods in a modern hunter-gatherer study. As far as nutrient content, it was pretty vast. It also included a lot of foods that we would never touch: ie bugs. I also agree with assertions that most hunter-gatherers eat far less meat products than we do. The energy expenditure to get meat was far greater than just running out to the local supermarket.

I think the issue with the Neo diet is that people who were accustomed to eating a variety of foods (that could provide macro and micro-nutrients) were all of a sudden eating fairly limited based on the crops they could cultivate.

I would also add in some sociological ideas of strata in cultures with the onset of cultivation, stored food and therefore economies. With economies, comes wealth. With wealth, we usually have a concept of the "haves" and "have nots". The "have nots", usually the greatest group by population, are usually the ones working the hardest, keeping the least and suffering the most. I don't think you can separate out this from health.

Quote:
How can you disagree that Homo sapiens sapiens, as we are today, don't have the proper digestive system for milk as adults?
Because some of us *can* and *do* digest milk just fine. Yeah, I know, 83% of the world is lactose intolerant. But what about the other 17%? What about cultures that live on nearly nothing but milk and meat?

Also, cultured dairy can be enjoyed by many lactose- intolerant people. Casein allergies are arguably much rarer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Traditional Foods
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › Traditional Foods › Paleo/NT, Is Eating Dairy Natural?