Hunting or Gathering

The writer assumes what most erroneously assume to be true: that good health is tantamount with being thin. It's not. It's entirely possible to be fat and fit just as it is possible to be thin and unfit.

Good health is not exponential to one's BMI, a ambiguous number which does not factor in one's ethnicity and genetically determined body types. The "obesity paradox" is called thus because there are so many conflicting reports which declare fat to be unhealthy, but fail to account for the myriad and multiple studies which show little to no health differences for the obese and their thin counterparts. In fact, research shows that it's not fat necessarily which is unhealthy - it's the effects of dieting which leads to adverse health consequences.

When determining good health, fitness not fatness should be the only determining factor.

Sent by Rachel Richardson - Cincinnati | 3:12 PM | 6-25-2007

I have to question your assertion of aesthetics & evolution. While some might have a affinity for pink flamingos and flat savannahs, you'll find more painting, photos, etc. of vertical features like mountains, trees and buildings. Flat landscapes tend to leave most images a little flat.

Sent by Ron | 3:17 PM | 6-25-2007

My guess is that this guest does not eat naturally. If you do eat only natural foods that would be available to hunter/gatherers, you lose desires for the gunky stuff that clogs your intestines such as sugar, flour and unnaturally-extracted oils. If you eat only natural oils, which are pressed (like extra virgin olive oil or expeller-pressed oils), lots of organic fruits and vegetables, and a little meat, you are very healthy. Then you produce healthy offspring! You crave what you are used to. If you eat entirely natural, your instinct becomes natural. My instinct does not say to look for sugar! She is speaking way too generally. Processed sugar is not appealing but the gorgeous, full-bodied healthiness of honey, is appealing when my body needs it.

Sent by Irene C | 3:18 PM | 6-25-2007

The number of hours per day the writer cites for the average hunter-gatherer workday is somewhat misleading. The 3 hours per day normally cited only accounts for the time spent hunting, and does not include very important things such as tool preparation and food processing. While these may not be part of the actual hunt, they are obviously a critical activity and should not be ignored.

This doesn't invalidate the writer's points about health, but the long-standing anthropological fallacy of the 3 hour workday in hunter-gatherer societies should not be perpetuated.

Sent by Brian Peisley - Denver | 3:25 PM | 6-25-2007

I changed my diet recently after reading Eat for Your Metabolic. My type of body metabolism happens to want protein. So by changing to more protein, less carbs and fruits, I feel great, have lost weight, and no longer crave sweets. There are 3 metabolic types, so each person must find their own type. One diet does not fit all.

Sent by Nancy | 3:26 PM | 6-25-2007

ate all of my food raw for two years and i'm convinced that is the way to eat. i never lacked for energy and never felt that stuffed tired fealing after eating and slept like a baby every nite. i exercied and could litterally run for hours without fatigue. my understanding is that all of our evolution comes from eating all of our food raw. like a hunter gather .. fruit and nuts in the am. and veges and protein in the pm. what say your author guest?

Sent by David Sherrod | 3:32 PM | 6-25-2007

I've been a vegetarian for over 20 years: there are about a billion of us (mostly in poorer countries, of course).

Your guest perpetuates that unforunate "protein myth." Disappointing.

Sent by Kevin A. Madden | 3:37 PM | 6-25-2007

In our evolutionary past, the kind of processed sugar people currently crave did not exist. The kind of unnaturally-extracted oils used in fast food did not exist. Processed flour sold in fast food did not exist. It's like this guest doesn't get the whole picture of how ideal real nature is for our bodies. In our past, we would eat berries and fruits will have much more fiber and more complex sugars than current processed sugars in candy. I feel like people project their personal desires onto the past as a means of justifying them. Why put so many negative ideas in people's minds when you can put them on the positive path where it is good to go? Maybe people crave more food when they eat junk because their body is starving for some actual nutrients. I feel full when I get nutrients, not so much calories. I think the conventional ideas of nutrition that are taught in universities are indoctrinated and out of touch with nature, which would sustain us if we would let it.

Sent by Irene C | 3:38 PM | 6-25-2007

Before we were a hunter gathering society, we were gatherers. Primates, including early humans, evolved not as hunters but as prey of many predators. Early humans couldn???t consume a large amount of meat until fire was controlled and cooking possible ??? these tools are fairly recent in the entire history of the modern man species. In fact, human anatomy is optimized for eating exclusively plant foods, and not meat.

Yet meat consumption has dramatically risen since the turn of the century, and is expected to double between 2001 and 2050. What this suggests is that humans eat by learned behaviors rather than by an instinctual, primal need.

Sent by Rachel | 3:41 PM | 6-25-2007

I think the author's evolutionary claims about diet sound valid, but the show (or her?) assertions that this absovles fast-food restaurants is absurd. Yes, people crave fat and sugar, but they didn't request ever increasing serving sizes. They didn't request billions of dollars worth of advertising/marketing/product placement to force excess quantities of fat salt and sugar on them. The fact that there is an involuntary evolutionary desire for these things, puts them in a class with nicotine, and doesn't absolve corporations of manipulating these innate drives towards unhealthy, profit-driven ends.

Sent by Ben | 3:45 PM | 6-25-2007

The disconnect between our past and our present cultures (caveman in the fast lane) goes far beyond just weight control and is the source of many modern "diseases" from impacted wisdom teeth to cancer and diabetes. It is certainly refreshing to see a such a study by Dr. Barrett. Unfortunently, much medical research today seems inclined to avoid the "E" word (EVOLUTION). Hmmmmm.

Sent by Robert Branstrator | 4:09 PM | 6-25-2007

I wish they had interviewed Nina Plank instead.

This show got on my nerves. A few months ago there was a show that showed that actually *radical* changes to a diet tended to fail over the course of a year.

Also, the guest failed to mention that grassfed beef, and pastured pork and poultry tend to have a higher ratio of Omega-3's (the good fat) to Omega-6's than the "processed" meat we eat today. And in fact grassfed beef contains CLA which has been shown to be a serious cancer fighter.

Further, I'm just not convinced that its "saturated fat" that is the real problem: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7418/777

Sent by Carolynn | 5:28 PM | 6-26-2007

i want to research abt the hunting & gathering before ancient period for that wht i ve to do?

Sent by sreya bhusal | 3:45 AM | 9-16-2008