Science Experts find cavemen ate mostly vegan, debunking paleo diet

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Link (Archive)

Experts find cavemen ate mostly vegan, debunking paleo diet​

A new study has debunked the general meal plan behind the Paleo diet, with findings suggesting that some Stone Age people ate a mostly vegan diet.

According to the Harvard School of Public Health, the Paleo diet was adapted to mimic the nutritional plan adopted until 2000 BC.

“The Paleo diet, also referred to as the caveman or Stone-Age diet, includes lean meats, fish, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds,” the University explains. “Proponents of the diet emphasise choosing low-glycemic fruits and vegetables.”

Most of the diet is centered around protein intake, promoting the consumption of grass-fed beef for its omega-3 content. In general, the idea is to consume the foods that were available during the Paleolithic period for health benefits since “our genetics and anatomy have changed very little” from that time, per the HSPH.

Now, a study published by the Nature Ecology & Evolution Journal researched and analysed the chemical signatures of the Paleolithic group, the Iberomaurusians, specifically within bones and teeth. Their findings suggest the general idea of meat being the primary source of protein during this time isn’t valid.

Stable isotope analysis was used, focusing on the nitrogen and zinc isotopes in teeth enamel and collagen to look at the meat consumption associated with the Iberomaurusians, as well as carbon isotopes to discover whether meat or fish was the primary source of protein.

“Our analysis showed that these hunter-gatherer groups, they included an important amount of plant matter, wild plants to their diet, which changed our understanding of the diet of pre-agricultural populations,” Zineb Moubtahij, the lead author for the study stated.

Additionally, researchers saw an abundance of cavities in the buried remains in the Taforalt caves, the places where Iberomaurusians would lay the dead to rest. According to the study, these cavities suggested the consumption of “fermentable starchy plants” like beets, corn, rye, and cassava.

Klervia Jaouen, a co-author of the study, noted that the “high proportion of plants in the diet of a pre-agricultural population” was “unusual”. However, their findings weren’t indicative of the protein intake for all individuals in the Stone Age.

Still, Jaouen pointed out that this was the first finding by isotope techniques that saw a “significant plant-based component in a Palaeolithic diet”.
 
What were the hunters in “hunter-gatherers” hunting for?
Ripe plants. ;)

I'm serious. Of course they were primarily hunting meat/birds/fish/honey (everyone forgets about that one) but they'd also watch for ripe edible plants to be gathered later in their travels. They covered a hell of a lot more territory than the rest of the tribe did in a day, so it made sense to act as scouts for the gatherers as well.

That is considered to be one of the main drivers in the development of language in the first place.
 
Screenshot 2024-05-02 at 12.16.48.png
Very trustworthy journalist to be writing about the diets of cave men years ago.
 
So humans ate pretty much the same things they eat now? Who could have guessed? And I guess we’re all vegans because we don’t eat as much meat as paleo dieters?
There's a very huge difference between what we eat now vs then. Humans ate considerably less carbohydrates which come from plants we only started growing after the agricultural revolution. We know this because we've analyzed bones of prehistoric men who had stronger teeth than we do now and also grew to be taller. And comparing them to the bones of people just a few thousand years ago. Who had extremely poor teeth and were much shorter. The latter had a mostly almost entirely carbohydrate based diet.

We also know that the human body was built to eat meat. The human jaw for example was designed to grow to a certain size due to the constant chewing of meat. Wider jaws directly correlate to less dental procedures needed (Which only existed in the last century) and also physical attractiveness according to women. Biologists even speculate the reason why we have sweat glands is because they allow us to essentially catch up to animals that can run faster than us but tire quicker. Essentially allowing us to eventually catch up to them once they have been tired out. Why would we have needed to evolve that if we mostly ate plants? Why would we have front facing eyes like predators if we mostly ate plants? Our skeletal structure which has mostly been unchanged for millions of years proves this wrong and hasn't been up for debate.

Additionally something these people never seem to ever acknowledge is the plants humans ate millions of years ago would have been completely different to what we have now. Almost all of the plants we have now were produced through selective breeding over the past few thousand years. Bananas for example used to have seeds in them and the apple used to taste like a potato. It's speculated the most sweet a plant would have tasted millions of years ago would have been akin to a carrot. Now imagine a hunter gatherer with a spear who lives in Africa with near constant access to game being told to only eat carrots for his entire life.

The fiction that we mostly ate plant based diets is a modern fable concocted in an attempt to trick modern people into switching to vegan under the assumption it's "more natural" when it's anything but.
 
Last edited:
Absolute garbage.

Jane Goodall had some interesting observations regarding the chimpanzees she observed in the wild. They would drop everything for a chance at protein. Hence the termite and ant fishing sticks. What makes these dumb fuckers think humans would be any different?
 
Who paid for this study? I smell Seventh Day Adventists

They're really insidious when it comes to promoting vegetarianism and veganism through bullshit studies like this and coincidentally own a lot of carb based snack-slop making companies

Don't eat this satiating protein, fill that never ending hunger hole with Li'l Debbie's because something something Jesus

Might just be my tinfoil but I've seen enough of this shit to always suspect those weirdos are behind it
 
According to the study, these cavities suggested the consumption of “fermentable starchy plants” like beets, corn, rye, and cassava.
None of these were domesticated until thousands of years after the Paleolithic. Even today cassava is inedible and toxic if consumed raw, the bitter form is outright poisonous even cooked.

Wild maize is called teosinte and looks nothing like the domesticated crop.
 
What absolute lies. This is just serious rewriting of ancient history to push the current 'MEAT BAD' agenda. What are all those cave paintings when ancient humanoids were depicted hunting mammoths, deer and other fauna then? I doubt the climate was warm enough for hunters to go hunting bugs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cereal Killer
Of course they did because if they wanted meat, they had to get good enough to catch it.
They couldn't just go to Walmart and get a Great Value Seasoned Sirloin Beef Philly Steak for $7.89/lb.
The tribe's chief, however, could send them into the forest to get him a Great Value Seasoned Sirlon Mammoth Steak for 8 shells or a piece of cloth.

Kind of like how you can tell if a "past-life" experience is BS because everybody thinks they were Napoleon or Caesar and not some illiterate gong farmer emptying a cesspit with his bare hands.
 
The same experts that told me the jab had no side effects?

Don't look into the variety of the hunter gatherers in Europe and Britain, you will realise just how much slop we have been fed for millenia, consisting of the same beige food stodge; wheat, corn and not the multitude of plants, herbs, mushroom, shellfish and meat.
 
Haven’t most studies on humans show that the optimal diet is heavily carnivorous? We aren’t omnivores as much as opportunistic carnivores.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flan Handler
You can't be "mostly vegan" any more than you can be "mostly pregnant."

The premise behind the paleo diet is retarded anyway. Cows were domesticated only 10,000 years ago, and this has had significant effects on humans' ability to continue digesting lactose. See also alcohol tolerance around the world. There are nontrivial differences in who digests what and how among various human populations all over the world. Whatever cave men ate before civilization, it's not what you're evolved to eat now (and no, you didn't evolve to eat sugar by the pound, either). Another example is that we've been cooking so long that we've largely lost our ability to safely eat raw meat.

Don't look into the variety of the hunter gatherers in Europe and Britain, you will realise just how much slop we have been fed for millenia, consisting of the same beige food stodge; wheat, corn and not the multitude of plants, herbs, mushroom, shellfish and meat

We have extensive documentation of hunter-gatherer tribes all over the Americas from sources like Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca and Meriwether Lewis. Any given tribe had a couple of staples with periods of feast and famine, they didn't have some vast cornucopia of dietary variety.

Why would we have front facing eyes like predators if we mostly ate plants?

We're also extremely good at throwing things and hitting targets. There's no reason for an herbivore to be able to throw like humans do.
 
The development of our big brains was specifically fueled by our ancestors eating marrow and animal fat.

Eating “vegan” is what prey animals do. One does not ascend the food chain as prey.

Problem solving, communication, tool-making… none of that is needed to just eat salads.
 
Any given tribe had a couple of staples with periods of feast and famine, they didn't have some vast cornucopia of dietary variety.
YMMV. In Britain we had wilds, wet lands, marshes, jungles (technically correct), forests and seas, all within a short jaunt. You can walk from Liverpool to Hull in a week, touching two seas, countless lakes, woodland, flatland, shrubs, hills, lakes and rivers.
 
Haven’t most studies on humans show that the optimal diet is heavily carnivorous? We aren’t omnivores as much as opportunistic carnivores.
Optimal diet is probably about 50:50 , maybe a bit higher, 65:35? good quality meat/dairy and a variety of plants, mushrooms, nuts, shellfish etc. we are omnivores.
they didn't have some vast cornucopia of dietary variety.
I know I’ve read somewhere that the pre Neolithic Brits ate dozens and dozens of wild plants -about a hundred or so iirc. I’ll try and find the estimate. In season for sure, things would have varied a lot over the year, but they did have variety.
Ok here’s not ancient Brits but a similar number to what I remember seeing, around the hundred or so:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...om_foraging_to_farming_to_food_technology#pf2

As I’ve got older and become one of those women who likes to garden a lot and forage in the woods, I e read quite a bit about what’s edible and what isn’t and it’s astonishing how much stuff you can go and make dinner out of if you forage. Even plants that were common to use just a few hundred years ago and aren’t now like good King Henry. Time team often used to have re enactors on who would whip up a plausible and delicious looking dinner from things they caught fishing plus herbs and tubers they found by the sites. I reckon a few dozen plant varieties is doable these days if youve got a garden.
 
Back