Tweet
Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic
Relevant to the current discussion:
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...-1984-1a.shtml
Excerpts below - read the whole article for the interesting chart, which I could not get to copy properly.
Longevity & health in ancient Paleolithic
vs. Neolithic peoples
How does the health/longevity of late Paleolithic hunters-gatherers compare with that of the Neolithic farmers who succeeded them? Periodically one will hear it stated in online discussion forums devoted to raw foods and vegetarianism that Paleolithic peoples only lived to be 25 (or 30, or 35) years, or whatever age. (The lack of exactitude in such figures illustrates how substantiating one's "scientific facts" is not usually a very highly emphasized value in these forums.) The intended point usually being that those terribly debauched flesh-eating cavemen--and women, presumably--were not living very long due to their consumption of meat.
As is often the case with such "facts," however, if one looks at the documented sources, one sees a different picture. Here we present a summary of a classic paper on the health and longevity of late Paleolithic (pre-agricultural) and Neolithic (early agricultural) people.
[Source: Angel, Lawrence J. (1984) "Health as a crucial factor in the changes from hunting to developed farming in the eastern Mediterranean." In: Cohen, Mark N.; Armelagos, George J. (eds.) (1984) Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture (proceedings of a conference held in 1982). Orlando: Academic Press. (pp. 51-73)]
Note that these figures come from studies in the field of "paleopathology" (investigation of health, disease, and death from archaeological study of skeletons) of remains in the eastern Mediterranean....
The table below is adapted and condensed considerably from Angel's full table included in the above paper. Angel comments on the indicators given in the table below that archaeologically, lifespan is the simplest indicator of overall health. Growth and nutrition status can be generally indicated by skull base height, pelvic inlet depth index, and adult stature--the latter two of which are shown here in addition to lifespan.....
The main thing to note here about the short average lifespans compared to modern times is that the major causes are thought to have been "occupational hazards," i.e., accidents, trauma, etc., stresses of nomadism, and so forth. It is not always clear how strongly other conclusions can be drawn about the effect of diet from these figures, but all other things being equal--
Median longevity decreased slightly during the first several millennia after the introduction of agricultural foods during which plant foods became a greater part of the diet, and meat a lesser part, than previously. This would seem to indicate that meat/protein consumption itself would not have been the factor responsible for decreased longevity (since less of it was being eaten after the late Paleolithic).
From some of the later time periods involved where civilizations were on the rise and fall, it appears that social factors have the biggest impact on longevity, particularly since longevity never rose above about age 45 for long, often falling below that figure for centuries at a time, until the 1900s, since which time it has almost doubled. Perhaps the most reliable conclusion to be drawn from the data here is that while diet is a significant influence on longevity, it is only part of the mix, and perhaps not as powerful a determinant as other factors. Angel himself comments on the interplay among them:
....interesting tidbits on diet and health from Angel's paper relating to the Paleolithic/Neolithic transition:
In prehistoric times (which would include Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic periods in the table above), human infant mortality was 20-30%. (For wild animals, the figure is 60-80%.)...
"The best explanation for relatively short [Paleolithic] life span is the combination of stresses of nomadism, climate, and warfare. The latter is especially clear in the Jebel Sahaba population, where projectile wounds affecting bone are very common and 'almost half the population probably died violently.' [Wendorf 1968]" (pp. 59-60) [Note: violence/trauma as a major cause of death was also true of the Mesolithic as well.]
Drop in stature due to nutritional stress begins appearing in places during the Mesolithic although in general it is still good. One site shows signs of seasonal growth arrest. [Note: Growth arrest lines in bone are seen in the young of populations experiencing seasonal food shortages and consequent nutritional shortfall.]
Hunting continued at a high enough level, however, so that protein and vitamin D levels were maintained at sufficient levels to sustain relatively healthy growth, and only small losses in adult stature are seen overall compared to the Paleolithic.
Mesolithic subsistence was characterized by four new practices and inventions: (1) The use of "composite" tools fashioned from multiple rather than simply single materials, including harpoons, arrows, and sickles; (2) the bow-and-arrow (which partially replaced spears and atlatls [an atlatl is a spear-throwing device]; (3) domestication of the dog for hunting (which also became pets); and (4) harvesting of wild grain (prior to actual cultivation later).
During the Neolithic, population density increased from 10 to 50-fold over the Paleolithic, supported by the spread of grain-farming. Angel estimates meat consumption fell to 10-20% of the Paleolithic level with this transition in subsistence.
....farming was hard work, and skeletal evidence shows signs of the heavy effort needed, which--combined with a diet adequate in calories but barely or less than adequate in minerals from the depleting effects of phytate (phytates in grains bind minerals and inhibit absorption)--led to a state of low general health. The considerable decrease in stature at this time (roughly 4-6 inches, or 12-16 cm, shorter than in pre-agricultural times) is believed to have resulted from restricted blood calcium and/or vitamin D, plus insufficient essential amino acid levels, the latter resulting from the large fall in meat consumption at this time (as determined by strontium/calcium ratios in human bone remains).
Low nutritional and health status continued from the late Neolithic with only slight fluctuations until Classical times 5,000 years later, as told in the evidence of skull base height 15% below the Paleolithic norm, a pelvic inlet depth index 7% below, and 3 to 4 times higher rates of dental disease. (Efficient early childhood growth is reflected in skull base height and in evidences of dental health, while pelvic inlet depth index and long-bone roundness are indicators of the degree of late childhood nutrition.) Strontium/calcium ratios point to low levels of red meat consumption.
However, zinc levels were on a par with those of modern times (a mineral that typically is gotten in the largest quantities from animal foods) strongly suggesting it was coming from fish, since red meat consumption was low, and the zinc levels found are beyond the amounts possible from plant-food consumption only.
Given this animal food source for critical skeletal-building minerals--which would normally also be reflected in good values for skull base height, pelvic inlet depth, and adult stature--the poor mineral status reflected in these measurements points to part of the explanation as the effect of continued phytate intake from grains, a substance which binds minerals preventing efficient absorption.
Angel sums up the Paleolithic-to-Neolithic-and-beyond transition as follows [p. 68]:
Disease effects were minor in the Upper [Late] Paleolithic except for trauma. ...
The other pressure limiting stature and probably also fertility in early and developing farming times was deficiency of protein and of iron and zinc from ingestion of too much phytic acid [e.g., from grains] in the diet. In addition, new diseases including epidemics emerged as population increased, indicated by an increase of enamel arrest lines in Middle Bronze Age samples....
We can conclude that farmers were less healthy than hunters, at least until Classical to Roman times......
--Ward Nicholson
My comments:
1) Mean or median age at death is a poor indicator of health status while alive due to high infant and maternal mortality and much higher per capita deaths due to homicide in paleolithic populations. I have no nostalgia for paleolithic central heating, hi fi systems or social systems. Other than my hobby of bowhunting, it is only the metabolism and food environment of the paleolithic I am interested in. No Rousseau for me, thank you.
2) Even with median age at death biased against paleo populations, there was a decrease in this parameter with the transition to agriculture.
3) Note the physical parameter of height and pelvic inlet depth. These would not be affected by a different homicide rate and are direct correlates of nutritional status. PID declined markedly with grain cultivation and has yet to return to its paleolithic value (97.7 paleo, 84.6 1000 years before sugars and white flower, 92.1 today) Clearly the first nutritional transition - the transition to agriculture - had a significant negative effect on physical indices of health that were independent of the later additions of sugar and High Fructose Corn Syrup.
4) I think it important to point out, it is reasonable to think that less disease and better indicia of health would predict greater longevity, but this is by no means assured nor is it a necessary part of my theory. If aging and the timing of death is regulated by genetics modified by epigenetic factors, one could still be healthier in every respect while alive yet your expected maximum lifespan might not change. That said, I personally believe that both lower carb and gluten grain consumption will eventually be proved to correlate with longevity. The best proxy for low blood glucose levels we have is Hemoglobin A1c and this is strongly predictive of future mortality.
5) Finally, I am still trying to falsify my assertion that there was calorically significant wild grain consumption (enough to cause us to adapt to such) before at most 10-15,000 years ago in either the new or old world. I have reviewed three more anthropology textbooks and searched for papers. I also consulted a good friend who has a Master's degree in anthropology and is a professional field archaeologist in the upper midwest. He confirms my reading of the literature. I am still wiliing to look at any peer-reviewed literature if anyone directs me to it.
RM
Relevant to the current discussion:
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...-1984-1a.shtml
Excerpts below - read the whole article for the interesting chart, which I could not get to copy properly.
Longevity & health in ancient Paleolithic
vs. Neolithic peoples
How does the health/longevity of late Paleolithic hunters-gatherers compare with that of the Neolithic farmers who succeeded them? Periodically one will hear it stated in online discussion forums devoted to raw foods and vegetarianism that Paleolithic peoples only lived to be 25 (or 30, or 35) years, or whatever age. (The lack of exactitude in such figures illustrates how substantiating one's "scientific facts" is not usually a very highly emphasized value in these forums.) The intended point usually being that those terribly debauched flesh-eating cavemen--and women, presumably--were not living very long due to their consumption of meat.
As is often the case with such "facts," however, if one looks at the documented sources, one sees a different picture. Here we present a summary of a classic paper on the health and longevity of late Paleolithic (pre-agricultural) and Neolithic (early agricultural) people.
[Source: Angel, Lawrence J. (1984) "Health as a crucial factor in the changes from hunting to developed farming in the eastern Mediterranean." In: Cohen, Mark N.; Armelagos, George J. (eds.) (1984) Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture (proceedings of a conference held in 1982). Orlando: Academic Press. (pp. 51-73)]
Note that these figures come from studies in the field of "paleopathology" (investigation of health, disease, and death from archaeological study of skeletons) of remains in the eastern Mediterranean....
The table below is adapted and condensed considerably from Angel's full table included in the above paper. Angel comments on the indicators given in the table below that archaeologically, lifespan is the simplest indicator of overall health. Growth and nutrition status can be generally indicated by skull base height, pelvic inlet depth index, and adult stature--the latter two of which are shown here in addition to lifespan.....
The main thing to note here about the short average lifespans compared to modern times is that the major causes are thought to have been "occupational hazards," i.e., accidents, trauma, etc., stresses of nomadism, and so forth. It is not always clear how strongly other conclusions can be drawn about the effect of diet from these figures, but all other things being equal--
Median longevity decreased slightly during the first several millennia after the introduction of agricultural foods during which plant foods became a greater part of the diet, and meat a lesser part, than previously. This would seem to indicate that meat/protein consumption itself would not have been the factor responsible for decreased longevity (since less of it was being eaten after the late Paleolithic).
From some of the later time periods involved where civilizations were on the rise and fall, it appears that social factors have the biggest impact on longevity, particularly since longevity never rose above about age 45 for long, often falling below that figure for centuries at a time, until the 1900s, since which time it has almost doubled. Perhaps the most reliable conclusion to be drawn from the data here is that while diet is a significant influence on longevity, it is only part of the mix, and perhaps not as powerful a determinant as other factors. Angel himself comments on the interplay among them:
....interesting tidbits on diet and health from Angel's paper relating to the Paleolithic/Neolithic transition:
In prehistoric times (which would include Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic periods in the table above), human infant mortality was 20-30%. (For wild animals, the figure is 60-80%.)...
"The best explanation for relatively short [Paleolithic] life span is the combination of stresses of nomadism, climate, and warfare. The latter is especially clear in the Jebel Sahaba population, where projectile wounds affecting bone are very common and 'almost half the population probably died violently.' [Wendorf 1968]" (pp. 59-60) [Note: violence/trauma as a major cause of death was also true of the Mesolithic as well.]
Drop in stature due to nutritional stress begins appearing in places during the Mesolithic although in general it is still good. One site shows signs of seasonal growth arrest. [Note: Growth arrest lines in bone are seen in the young of populations experiencing seasonal food shortages and consequent nutritional shortfall.]
Hunting continued at a high enough level, however, so that protein and vitamin D levels were maintained at sufficient levels to sustain relatively healthy growth, and only small losses in adult stature are seen overall compared to the Paleolithic.
Mesolithic subsistence was characterized by four new practices and inventions: (1) The use of "composite" tools fashioned from multiple rather than simply single materials, including harpoons, arrows, and sickles; (2) the bow-and-arrow (which partially replaced spears and atlatls [an atlatl is a spear-throwing device]; (3) domestication of the dog for hunting (which also became pets); and (4) harvesting of wild grain (prior to actual cultivation later).
During the Neolithic, population density increased from 10 to 50-fold over the Paleolithic, supported by the spread of grain-farming. Angel estimates meat consumption fell to 10-20% of the Paleolithic level with this transition in subsistence.
....farming was hard work, and skeletal evidence shows signs of the heavy effort needed, which--combined with a diet adequate in calories but barely or less than adequate in minerals from the depleting effects of phytate (phytates in grains bind minerals and inhibit absorption)--led to a state of low general health. The considerable decrease in stature at this time (roughly 4-6 inches, or 12-16 cm, shorter than in pre-agricultural times) is believed to have resulted from restricted blood calcium and/or vitamin D, plus insufficient essential amino acid levels, the latter resulting from the large fall in meat consumption at this time (as determined by strontium/calcium ratios in human bone remains).
Low nutritional and health status continued from the late Neolithic with only slight fluctuations until Classical times 5,000 years later, as told in the evidence of skull base height 15% below the Paleolithic norm, a pelvic inlet depth index 7% below, and 3 to 4 times higher rates of dental disease. (Efficient early childhood growth is reflected in skull base height and in evidences of dental health, while pelvic inlet depth index and long-bone roundness are indicators of the degree of late childhood nutrition.) Strontium/calcium ratios point to low levels of red meat consumption.
However, zinc levels were on a par with those of modern times (a mineral that typically is gotten in the largest quantities from animal foods) strongly suggesting it was coming from fish, since red meat consumption was low, and the zinc levels found are beyond the amounts possible from plant-food consumption only.
Given this animal food source for critical skeletal-building minerals--which would normally also be reflected in good values for skull base height, pelvic inlet depth, and adult stature--the poor mineral status reflected in these measurements points to part of the explanation as the effect of continued phytate intake from grains, a substance which binds minerals preventing efficient absorption.
Angel sums up the Paleolithic-to-Neolithic-and-beyond transition as follows [p. 68]:
Disease effects were minor in the Upper [Late] Paleolithic except for trauma. ...
The other pressure limiting stature and probably also fertility in early and developing farming times was deficiency of protein and of iron and zinc from ingestion of too much phytic acid [e.g., from grains] in the diet. In addition, new diseases including epidemics emerged as population increased, indicated by an increase of enamel arrest lines in Middle Bronze Age samples....
We can conclude that farmers were less healthy than hunters, at least until Classical to Roman times......
--Ward Nicholson
My comments:
1) Mean or median age at death is a poor indicator of health status while alive due to high infant and maternal mortality and much higher per capita deaths due to homicide in paleolithic populations. I have no nostalgia for paleolithic central heating, hi fi systems or social systems. Other than my hobby of bowhunting, it is only the metabolism and food environment of the paleolithic I am interested in. No Rousseau for me, thank you.
2) Even with median age at death biased against paleo populations, there was a decrease in this parameter with the transition to agriculture.
3) Note the physical parameter of height and pelvic inlet depth. These would not be affected by a different homicide rate and are direct correlates of nutritional status. PID declined markedly with grain cultivation and has yet to return to its paleolithic value (97.7 paleo, 84.6 1000 years before sugars and white flower, 92.1 today) Clearly the first nutritional transition - the transition to agriculture - had a significant negative effect on physical indices of health that were independent of the later additions of sugar and High Fructose Corn Syrup.
4) I think it important to point out, it is reasonable to think that less disease and better indicia of health would predict greater longevity, but this is by no means assured nor is it a necessary part of my theory. If aging and the timing of death is regulated by genetics modified by epigenetic factors, one could still be healthier in every respect while alive yet your expected maximum lifespan might not change. That said, I personally believe that both lower carb and gluten grain consumption will eventually be proved to correlate with longevity. The best proxy for low blood glucose levels we have is Hemoglobin A1c and this is strongly predictive of future mortality.
5) Finally, I am still trying to falsify my assertion that there was calorically significant wild grain consumption (enough to cause us to adapt to such) before at most 10-15,000 years ago in either the new or old world. I have reviewed three more anthropology textbooks and searched for papers. I also consulted a good friend who has a Master's degree in anthropology and is a professional field archaeologist in the upper midwest. He confirms my reading of the literature. I am still wiliing to look at any peer-reviewed literature if anyone directs me to it.
RM
Comment