Future Cave Man: The Paleo Diet

When John Durant of Hunter-Gatherer.com appeared on the Colbert Report the other night to promote the Cave Man Diet (Paleo Diet), it seemed easy to dismiss him as a total kook hooked on machismo. He sat on stage talking about climbing trees for exercise, looking for a lady with lactose-intolerance and celiac disease (that he could bash over the head and drag back to his New York apartment?), and complaining about the inherent health problems associated with industrial food production – especially grains and refined sugars, which most vegetarian chicks are hooked on, apparently. When asked what he eats for breakfast, he responded “eggs and bacon.”

“Huh?” I thought. I may not be an anthropologist, but I wondered if he snatched those eggs from a pigeon’s nest in Central Park (illegal) like his ancestors may have done in their local niche? His breakfast, unless it was wild boar bacon and local wild goose eggs is in contradiction to his own argument. But he did not clarify, so it may have been!

It turns out he’s not a total kook. The unfortunate part of this testosterone spectacle is that there is a lot of legitimacy to what John Durant might have to say about the way pre-civilized people lived, aside from what he thought they ate.  For people like John and a gastroenterologist named Walter L. Voegtlin – who popularized the fad diet in the 70s, it’s just about diet and nutrition. Like AtThe stone age diet: Based on in-depth studies of human ecology and the diet of mankins, the focus on meat is neither nutritionally or historically accurate. The idea of hunting equaling manhood and simulated running-from-mammoths as a form of exercise belongs in the 1970′s along with the outdated and prejudice ideas anthropologists had about primitive peoples during that time. The true tragedy is that the social and political implications of dispelling myths about primitive peoples are not only left by the wayside, but stereotypes are embraced and exploited. In the same way that Durant might argue for the healthfulness of eating the entire orange as opposed to just drinking the juice, the fiber of the argument is left out in favor of something refined and out of context: the sweet juice of masculine vanity .

New York Times Article: The New Age Cavemen and the City (aren't vegans supposed to be pale?)

In a NYT Article in January, Durant’s three-foot-tall refrigerated meat locker is referenced, yet would never have been found in any cave. “The caveman lifestyle, in Mr. Durant’s interpretation, involves eating large quantities of meat and then fasting between meals to approximate the lean times that his distant ancestors faced between hunts. Then he says, “I didn’t want to do some faddish diet that my sister would do.”

Ironically, the Cave Man Diet has been qualified as a fad diet by the National Health Service of England and American Dietetic Association, yet well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets that his sister, and many of the women he complains about in his Colbert interview may partake in, are considered “healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases… [and are] suitable for all stages of the life-cycle,” according to the ADA. Colbert was clearly onto something in asking if this were some glorified form of the Atkins diet.

The biggest problem with John Durant’s beliefs about food lie in anthropological inaccuracy. Even An image showing the approximate placement of skeleton elements recovered. Some pieces found separately in the excavation are rejoined here.today there is far too much variability among gatherer-hunter cultures to be able to illustrate “typical” behavior. But Recent discoveries like Ardi require us to re-write our evolutionary history, and more recent anthropological findings make a strong case that pre-civilized planet earth was, in most favorable climates, a bounty of gatherable foods, and evidence suggests that women provided 60-80% of the diet in gathered plant foods, much like the !Kung of the Kalahari Desert in southwestern Africa and the Mbuti of the central African rain forest [source].

Also left out of this popular fad diet is the evolutionary importance of the introduction of new plant foods, such as tubers, into the human diet when our ancestors transitioned from the forests into savannas [source]. If Durant were following a more accurate gatherer-hunter diet, and not one based on movies and out-dated anthropology, it would consist mostly of seeds, berries, roots, shoots, fruits, nuts, leaves, larvae, honey, shellfish, crustaceans and occasional additions of the organs and high-fat body parts of animals. Let’s consider that hunting required a lot more energy, time, and tool-making than gathering plant-based foods. Hunting game is preferred in areas where gathering was not the obvious and efficient choice, like the arctic circle. It seems that if you threw a few grubs into a raw foodists salad once in a while- they and fruitarians are more evolutionarily accurate than John Durant’s diet, which is based on European Ice Age and traditional Eskimo diets. In the majority of cases, the term hunter-gatherer should be flipped with the “gatherer” as being primary.

Steve Brill

Future Wild Man, Steve Brill shows us what is actually edible in our local bioregions.

We can agree with these modern cave-men that incredible prejudice exists against pre-civilized peoples. Theorists, anthropologists and writers who have become more mainstream, like John Zerzan and Derrick Jensen and Daniel Quinn, deal with these issues and make the argument that, in fact,  many pre-civilized peoples lead very leisurely and healthy lives full of play, sex, rest, and minimal “work”. Primitivism, and the study of pre-industrial and pre-civilized peoples often contradicts the idea that life was a perpetual struggle ending in early death. The idea that it was all struggle and pain is a modern rationalization as to why we chose to head towards civilization – we must have abandoned that lifestyle for good reason, no? But many anthropologists now ask whether it was a choice or was there a draconian drama that unfolded?

You’d think that someone who bases their ideal diet on the way things were thousands of years ago, would have some concern for the environment, since the earth was in quite a different state back then. Currently, raising animals for food is the greatest single cause of global warming and rainforest destruction. There are 300 million indigenous and non-indigenous people who live in forests and whose livelihoods and very homes are threatened by modern meat production. It’s ironic that the peoples whose lives are modeled in this diet are threatened because of the very foods it suggests we focus on. Unless of course, Durand makes the silly suggestion that there is enough wild game and grass-fed beef to feed the world a meat-centered diet. A plant-based diet easily resolves this problem.

Durant complains about all the vegetarian girls he meets being addicted to sugar. However, far from being a rare delicacy, honey contributed a substantial portion of the calories in many primitive diets. The Hazda of Tanzania, the Mbuti pygmies of the Congo, the Veddas or Wild Men of Sri Lanka, the Guayaka Indians of Paraguay, the Bushmen of South Africa and the Aborigines of Australia, all put a high value on honey and consumed it in large amounts. It appears that salty and sweet taste-buds are not, in fact, superfluous.[1] Furthermore, many American Indians consumed Maple Syrup and used it in preparing other foods.

http://jasondylan.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/darryl-hannah-clan-of-the-cave-bear_l1.jpg

Sorry, Durant! Star of Clan Of the Cave Bear, Daryl Hanna is a healthy and passionate vegan

John Durant’s fascination and promotion of the Cave Man Fad Diet seems due to the romanticized manliness associated with hunters and his personal desire to identify as a “real” man. However, what he has to say about the dangers of sedentary lifestyles, the benefits of play and exercise, the health hazards of industrialized food systems, dairy products and refined grains and sugars do offer serious legitimacy and are all things we should get on board with. Even attempting to re-learn what is edible in our local bioregions could be crucial to our survival as a species. But the preference for meat is riddled with prejudice, historical inaccuracy, ecological devastation, and outdated definitions of manhood.


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or create a trackback from your own site.

  • Paul

    Funny how commonly people over-think diet – as if it’s more complicated than eating nutrient rich foods that minimize suffering.

    Can’t believe I only now found your site. Subscribed. Keep it up.

  • http://chadfred.blogspot.com chad

    Totally the first time I’ve ever seen Zerzan mentioned as a more mainstream writer. Awesome.

    I’ve been in the whole Crossfit/Paleo scene and observed people doing very well on this “diet” (improved cholesterol, body composition, energy levels), but have also witnessed my wife’s tremendous success with whole food veganism (limited soy, limited boxed foods)

    For both, I think what’s excluded is important. Processed dairy, shitty cookies and Chicken Nuggets are off both lists.

    Veganism has the benefit of posessing a moral center. Hard core vegans never falter, cave dieters will give into the temptation of factory meat all too often (my own experience).

    And yeah, glorifying/mystifying cave men is stupid. I’ll go watch Encino Man for that.

  • gord

    the veggies here should read “the vegetarian myth”. explains a lot!!!. we did eat meat (and organs, eyeballs, hearts, etc) and a lot at one sitting but berries, nuts and fruit were there to hold them over until the next kill.

  • http://myhobos.com Gretchen Hanson

    Bravo Joelle! Couldnt have stated it better. My ancestors drank raw blood with their kill, think I’ll evolve and pass on the pleasure ;)

  • Olivia

    I’m a vegan crossfitter and I found this very informative. I also am not pale, thin, or weak.

  • http://www.crossfit-hr.com Brett

    @joshuakatcher This one is so easy. Of I could sight the works of Michael Pollan and so many other real scientist, but if you really want to see the evolutionary facts that we ate a great deal of meat then just open your mouth. The teeth we have are designed for chewing meat. You do not evolve teeth like humans have unless you spent hundreds of thousands of year eating meat. You don’t need these these to eat fruit or yams or lettuce. If you are a vegggies only I am sure no argument I can make will change your mind and thus we must disagree. Our teeth are simply clear facts right in your face, pun intended. If you want to make a case against eating dairy then we agree.

    • http://www.thediscerningbrute.com joshuakatcher

      http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/the-comparative-anatomy-of-eating.html

      “The saliva of carnivorous animals does not contain digestive enzymes. When eating, a mammalian carnivore gorges itself rapidly and does not chew its food. Since proteolytic (protein-digesting) enzymes cannot be liberated in the mouth due to the danger of autodigestion (damaging the oral cavity), carnivores do not need to mix their food with saliva; they simply bite off huge chunks of meat and swallow them whole.

      According to evolutionary theory, the anatomical features consistent with an herbivorous diet represent a more recently derived condition than that of the carnivore. Herbivorous mammals have well-developed facial musculature, fleshy lips, a relatively small opening into the oral cavity and a thickened, muscular tongue. The lips aid in the movement of food into the mouth and, along with the facial (cheek) musculature and tongue, assist in the chewing of food. In herbivores, the jaw joint has moved to position above the plane of the teeth. Although this type of joint is less stable than the hinge-type joint of the carnivore, it is much more mobile and allows the complex jaw motions needed when chewing plant foods. Additionally, this type of jaw joint allows the upper and lower cheek teeth to come together along the length of the jaw more or less at once when the mouth is closed in order to form grinding platforms. (This type of joint is so important to a plant-eating animal, that it is believed to have evolved at least 15 different times in various plant-eating mammalian species.) The angle of the mandible has expanded to provide a broad area of attachment for the well-developed masseter and pterygoid muscles (these are the major muscles of chewing in plant-eating animals). The temporalis muscle is small and of minor importance. The masseter and pterygoid muscles hold the mandible in a sling-like arrangement and swing the jaw from side-to-side. Accordingly, the lower jaw of plant-eating mammals has a pronounced sideways motion when eating. This lateral movement is necessary for the grinding motion of chewing.

      The dentition of herbivores is quite varied depending on the kind of vegetation a particular species is adapted to eat. Although these animals differ in the types and numbers of teeth they posses, the various kinds of teeth when present, share common structural features. The incisors are broad, flattened and spade-like. Canines may be small as in horses, prominent as in hippos, pigs and some primates (these are thought to be used for defense) or absent altogether. The molars, in general, are squared and flattened on top to provide a grinding surface. The molars cannot vertically slide past one another in a shearing/slicing motion, but they do horizontally slide across one another to crush and grind. The surface features of the molars vary depending on the type of plant material the animal eats. The teeth of herbivorous animals are closely grouped so that the incisors form an efficient cropping/biting mechanism, and the upper and lower molars form extended platforms for crushing and grinding. The “walled-in” oral cavity has a lot of potential space that is realized during eating.”

  • http://www.thediscerningbrute.com joshuakatcher

    @Brett, I’d love to see some facts to back up your claims that are not from the 1970s. It’s easy enough to brush something off by reacting as if it’s ridiculous. I’m simply bringing up legitimate anthropological, evolutionary, and scientific evidence I found. I never said prehistoric people did not eat meat. I said the majority of them ate a lot less meat than we think they did, which is backed up by science.

  • http://www.crossfit-hr.com Brett

    Wow is all I can say. The agenda driven false statements on this page are jocular at best. If you don’t believe in eating meat and the inhuman ways animals are treated in the industrial food chain I applaud you. If you don’t think our ancestor ate a lot of meat then you are just very wrong. People ate the foods that existed in their natural habitats. Some had many animals and some had very few. This person on Colbert is probably a not a sage and his advice may not be correct. I can tell you the Paleo diet is a healthier way of eating and should be followed. As to Danielle I think you are looking at the wrong “paleo” men. I am an avid crossfitter and we are far from pale, thin or deprived of blood. Come check us out. http://www.crossfit.com/

  • http://www.noblewi.org Maxine

    Nice post there! Very informative and you also put some humor in it.
    I surely will come back to read more of you posts.
    Cheers.

  • danielle

    I really would like to know why the Paleo-bots look like clammy-white vampires who aren’t getting enough blood.

    Maybe the crumbled Atkins empire is behind this absurd little fad?

  • Charlie

    Haha, you are absolutely wrong. Meat was a very very important part of evolving man’s diet. Please don’t gloss over fact when it suits your agenda.

    • http://www.thediscerningbrute.com joshuakatcher

      I never said it wasn’t, Charlie. But what most evidence shows is that the majority (60-80%) of the gatherer-hunter’s diet in areas outside of the arctic climates was gathered plant-based foods- so placing meat as the central focus when there are plenty of plant-based options available is ridiculous. That’s why the term “gatherer-hunter” is more accurate as opposed to “hunter-gatherer”.
      Please don’t gloss over facts simply to suit your palate.

  • joelle

    And beyond the anthropological dispute of what the cavemen were really doing, there is a question of “why do we glorify the caveman’s ways?” we have evolved and changed much from our neolithic ancestors, as all species do, adapting to our changing environment. The world has changed, our bone structure, our posture our teeth, so much has changed since we were once cavemen. This is as relevant as comparing our diet and lifestyle to that of an ape. The point is, we can be extremely healthy and better to the environment and cause minimal sentient suffering by eating a vegan diet, so why would we choose anything else?!