Paleo Got It Wrong: We’ve Loved Carbs for Over 100,000 Years | SciShow News


Thanks to Brilliant for sponsoring this whole
week of SciShow! You can learn more at Brilliant.org/SciShow. [ ♪INTRO ] We used to think that carbs were a recent
addition to the human diet. I mean, that’s why the so-called “Paleo
diet” says you shouldn’t eat wheat or potatoes. But perhaps unsurprisingly, the fad diet trend
doesn’t really capture the science of what people used to eat. And just last week, a new study published
in the Journal of Human Evolution further proved that. You see, the researchers found smoking-gun
evidence that says humans have been eating starches for over a hundred thousand years. Up until recently, the general assumption
was that early hominins were top-level carnivores whose diet was mostly meat. It was thought that our species only started
to buck this trend around 10,000 years ago when agriculture became widespread. But more recent studies have cast doubt on
this idea. For one thing, our genes seem to suggest we
were eating starch a long time ago. Take the gene AMY1, for example, which encodes
the protein amylase. That’s an enzyme produced in your saliva
which helps break down starches into simple sugars. Great apes, and older lineages of human like
Neanderthals and Denisovans, have two copies of this gene. But you, my friend, have as many as twenty
copies of it. There is no reason for our species to have
made and kept so many copies of this gene if we weren’t consuming starches. These copies aren’t new, either — an 8,000-year-old
hunter-gatherer was found to have 13 copies of this gene. And that much duplication doesn’t happen
overnight. Analyses suggests they’re hundreds of thousands
of years old, which would mean that adaptation to a starch-rich diet was already happening
long before agriculture took hold. Archaeological studies also lend a bit of
support to this idea. Charred food remains suggest humans cooked
oats, wild peas, and root vegetables some 65,000 years ago, for example. And archaeologists have also found starch
granules in the fossilized teeth of both Neanderthals and modern humans from around 50,000 years
ago. There’s even evidence of people making bread
or something like it 4,000 years before the advent of agriculture. But last week, an international team of archaeologists
announced the oldest find yet: charred remains from plant starches dating as far back as
120,000 years ago. These were found in ancient hearths from the
Klasies River Cave in southern South Africa. It wasn’t just obvious what the charred
bits were, though. The scientists had to examine them closely
with an electron microscope. That’s an instrument that uses electrons
in place of light to look at specimens in a much higher magnification than traditional
light-based microscopes. With it, the researchers were able to identify
burned bits of roots and tubers — vegetable varieties akin to modern yams and potatoes. In other words, starches. This find is the earliest yet showing that
humans were cooking and eating starch long before agriculture was a thing. This helps explain the existing evidence of
ancient starch consumption from our genomes, and it basically closes the book on other
theories. We weren’t simple meat-eaters back in the
Paleolithic. Humans have loved carbs for a very, very long
time. And judging by how I feel about a can of Pringles,
this makes sense. But while one genetic mystery seems to be
solved, on Tuesday, scientists announced that they’ve uncovered a new one. They found a lineage of yeast that has lost
a bunch of genes supposedly required for life. And yet…it’s alive. The yeast in question is a genus called Hanseniaspora,
which is used a lot in winemaking. During the early stages of wine fermentation,
Hanseniaspora will multiply like crazy. And even when winemakers use multiple types
of yeast, varieties of this yeast grow so fast that they can end up being 80% of the
final yeast population. And it’s not just a fast grower — it’s
a fast evolver. When scientists analyzed the genomes of many
types of yeast, they found that a lot of the species in this genus experience rapid genetic
changes in a relatively short amount of time. So scientists at Vanderbilt University and
University of Wisconsin-Madison decided to take a closer look. And they were astonished to find species without
really important genes. You see, from a biological perspective, some
genes are considered more important than others. Like, the genes that code for proteins involved
in cell division, for example. These are really old genes that have changed
very little over time — presumably because changes to them don’t generally work out
so well. So they’re thought to be super important
— even essential for life. And accordingly, they can be found in pretty
much every living thing ever — except, for Hanseniaspora. The researchers identified two varieties of
this yeast which had completely lost dozens of genes, including ones involved in cell
division and DNA repair. One had branched off into a new lineage about
87 million years ago and evolved quickly, while the other branched off about 54 million
years ago and evolved more slowly. And the fast-evolving lineage lost the most. For example, both lineages lost WHIskey 5,
which helps regulate cell size during cell division, and MAG1, which plays a role in
removing damaged DNA bases. But the fast-evolving lineage also lost a
bunch of other genes that keep cells from mutating. During the process of cell division, there
are various checkpoints that make sure the steps toward division have been completed
correctly before things are allowed to proceed. The fast-evolving lineage lost several of
the genes involved in these checkpoints. This simply isn’t supposed to happen. Letting DNA mutate without repair and cells
divide without oversight should lead to fatal changes occurring relatively quickly — but
somehow this lineage has survived. The scientists think that other genes may
be picking up the slack for the genes that were lost. As for why these species would want to mutate
so rapidly, the researchers pointed out many organisms go through periods of rapid mutation
when the world they live in changes. So, it’s possible that a rapidly changing
environment in Hanseniaspora’s past gave the fastest mutators an evolutionary advantage. And that may mean that, when it comes to evolutionary
strategies, losing genes could be as effective for adaptation as making new ones. The researchers hope that studying this fast-evolving
mutant yeast can teach them more about the basic processes that govern life. One thing’s for sure though: many of the
genes we thought were essential aren’t. I guess Ian Malcolm was right: Life, uh, finds
a way. It took some hardcore genomics research to
figure out what these yeasts’ genomes looked like. And if you want to better understand how that
research is done, you might want to check out Brilliant.org. Their course on Computational Biology, for
example, can help demystify genomics research. You’ll learn the science behind genotyping
and ancestry analysis, among other things. And that’s just one of their in-depth interactive
courses — they have dozens covering topics in math, science, engineering, and computer
science. All of them are designed to be hands-on, with
animations and quizzes to help guide your understanding the whole way through. And their iOS app lets you download your courses
to work through later. Plus, the first 200 people to sign up at Brilliant.org/SciShow
will get 20% off the annual Premium subscription. That unlocks all of their daily challenges
in the archives in addition to the actual courses. And you’ll be supporting SciShow while you
learn. So, thanks for that! [ ♪OUTRO ]

Posts Tagged with…

Reader Comments

  1. SciShow

    Go to http://Brilliant.org/SciShow to try out Brilliant’s Daily Challenges. The first 200 subscribers get 20% off an annual Premium subscription.

  2. jhunt5578

    It's so satisfying to imagine Paleo aka bro scientists hearing this news. The science is pretty clear high animal product consumption increases risk of mortality.

  3. MrsG87

    Paleo still eats potatoes, they just avoid gluten.
    Even Atkins diet lets you eat potatoes.
    I think someone was misinformed LOL.

  4. Chris Klugh

    Stick with a low carb high fat diet and your good. Really, just stop eating empty carbs. Stop eating processed foods/fast foods, and make an effort to eat your fruits and vegetables, and you probably wont have to worry about diets.

  5. Eric Wintczak

    I really want you to say: please note that even though following a strict religious-like paleo diet would be historically incorrect, that is not to say that most people could probably benefit from cutting down refined and high glycemic index carbs and starches. And 60% or so of people could likely stand to cut gluten as well. In general, the subset idea of paleo to eat more naturally-available and less processed food is the 'baby' you're throwing out with the 'bathwater' when you just surface level "debunk" … this incomplete video, I'm concerned, might be a detriment in the form of an excuse to the willfully-blind on the road to diabetes, IBD, chronic inflammation, etc.
    ie. say some pre diabetic guy sees this, along side other jargony and mixed medical information out there, and decides it's too complicated and changing his lifestyle would be "getting it wrong" so he says f-it, and keeps eating cereal for breakfast until he gets diabetes, and blames fate…
    Please don't do videos incompletely just for clickability and profit. I usually like this channel

  6. Jill Bond

    I mean its been known for a while that humans have been taking wild grains and planting them, but not staying in one set location, as farming due to the climate was particularly difficult. The point of the paleo diet is not to say that we didn't consume any carbohydrates but that when we began farming and agricultural practices, and selecting variants of grains that this had a negative impact on our health and people should eat more in line with a hunting/gathering diet. However, what the diet misses is that horticulture societies have had no presence of 'modern' diseases such as diabetes for example, indicating that its not the actual agriculture that is the issue but the wider culture that is behind poor health.

  7. Kuchi Kopi

    Thanks for this info!! The first half was super interesting. But im not sure why you were taking about yeast at the end. It felt like it was not tied to the main subject very well. What does yeast have to do with our ancestors consuming starches? I needed something that brought those two ideas together. Thx

  8. Karl Houseknecht

    There's a huge difference between having the ability to digest simple starches and wild whole grains as part of a wider, varied diet, and pouring cups of sugar and flour down your gullet daily. Literally cups of it a day. That's why we're so fat. The "bread" these primitive humans consumed was probably like an oat cake charred on a stone near a fire, rather than refined flour and sugar baked fluffy and white inside. Given the choice, I'll err on the "paleo" side of the diet than on the consumption of heaps of bread, pasta, and sugar on a daily basis. Lean protein and vegetables are good for you.

  9. Sophal27

    Maybe our ancesters ate starches but they didn't have acces to unlimited amount of fast carbs like sugar or refined flour. Obesity and metabolic syndrome was not a big problem back then.

  10. Afrodisiac

    We know so little about life, yet as a Bio major I feel the need to laugh every time Master's students and professors claim to know the origin of life or explain abiogenetic hypothesis as fact. I wish academia approached Biology with much less hubris than they currently do. Also, only laymen assume that we were "hyper carnivores" in the past. Paleodiet has been extensively studied by anthropologists and archeologists since the mid 20th century and we've known for well over a century that we've always been omnivorous to varying degrees. Granted, some human populations such as those that live in more polar climates have very low carb diets, along with many pastoral nomads, but carbs and fiber have always been key staples of our diets since the dawn of man. Hell, you can't even look at the word "hunter-gatherer" without wondering what the second part implies. I just think folks that follow a Paleodiet are just too bougie to admit that they're eating Keto; however, a low carb high fat diet is actually really healthy, especially in terms of an athletic lifestyle, and many paleopopulations have been eating Keto for a long time, although it was more a result of eating nuts, insects, small animals, and greens that were relatively low carb to begin with compared to early cereals and tubers. Needless to say, this is a multifaceted issue as not all paleopopulations had the same habitat, lifestyle, or access to resources. Sometimes folks ate what they could and made do.

  11. Matt Smith

    I haven't heard from any person who does Paleo say we should eat absolutely no carbs. They advocate for eating a good amount of fruits and veggies. This sounds more like Adkins or Keto to me.
    (Note that I'm not on any of these diets I just wish the video would be more clear)

  12. Hubert Heller

    Prehistoric man certainly had carbohydrates but they were starchy wild vegetables and roots with lots of fiber, not ultra processed white bread and high fructose corn syrup infused soft drinks. None of the sensible paleo diets recommend no carbs.

  13. Nicanor Núñez

    But Dr Peterson says if you don't eat carbs you don't need vitamin c, he said that there is a paper and is very interesting.

  14. Gary

    I do love carbs and that is exactly why I need to stay away from them. If I focus on protein and fat I just need my three meals a day but the moment I have something high-carb I end up snacking all the time.

  15. Matt Keenan

    Pringles have more calories from fat than carbs tho.. Exactly why people think carbs make you fat, but it's actually the excess fat.

  16. Adam Smith

    Sounds totally unsurprising to me… Primitive humans would have eaten whatever they could get their hands on. That still doesn't mean lots of carbs are good for you… They were eating mostly unprocessed carbs and only when they were available… meaning in season.

  17. Jeremiah Huntley

    Don't tell me that Fruity Pebbles, and Cocoa Pebbles aren't paleo. They have a picture of a caveman right on the packaging.

  18. L Byrley

    In general, if the food is something people have been eating across cultures for a thousand years or so, it's probably not as bad as that health magazine says it is…

  19. Towerdog

    We found some burnt roots:
    "Paleo slammed in new report"
    I don't give 2 shits about the Paleo diet but damn if this doesn't seem clickbaity af.

  20. Linda McNeil

    So it looks like we were hunter and gathers. The biggest problem is that we are trying to divide to falsely prove a diet preference. Our differing bodies do metabolize our food types differently. Eating food as close to nature is better for us in general. Sorry, Pringle’s can be a tough diet.

  21. David Cajthaml

    Not surprised that we’ve been eating carbs for a really long time. My question is: were we able to eat carbs year-round? Seasonally? A few months out of the year? Also, did all humans around the globe eat carbs in the same way?

  22. Tyler MacDonald

    Can we please step away from the notion that 1. Human diets were consistent among all groups of people and 2. That these diets were the complete set of meals they ate THEIR ENTIRE LIVES. Why is it so hard to believe that we fluctuated in eating?

  23. McGoof17

    There's a big difference between potatoes and bread; and there's a big difference between the bleached, pulverized white bread we eat today with the grain and nutrient rich breads commoners ate in medieval times.

  24. Un Om

    WoW! A starchy plant based diet is our species specific diet then can prevent, treat and cure most diseases. Who would have thought?

  25. Tim L

    Let me first say, I'm not a Paleo diet advocate. But this video is a bit misleading. While the Paleo diet doesn't describe early human consumption perfectly, this video is also equally imperfect. Paleo diet eliminates grains, not carbs. And while science has shown that early humans did eat some grains, they most definitely didn't do it at the level that is currently making humans fat and more susceptible to modern diseases. And the claim that humans did not eat mostly meat in the Paleolithic period is not born out by the evidence presented in this video.

    It is painfully obvious that humans did eat plants during the Paleolithic. The debate is not whether they did, but how much. A few tribes may have subsisted on mostly plant products, provided that their environment allowed it, especially towards the later portion of the Paleolithic, but this was not possible in most regions. Of course, it makes no sense to claim that humans only began eating grains around the time of the beginning of agriculture. Very obviously, agriculture had to start from somewhere. For a human to purposefully plant a seed, they will have to have seen a benefit in that already. It only makes sense that humans noticed the plant foods they found during the gathering process would grow more frequently when parts of those plants were left on the ground. But wild plants don't grow and produce edible products year round, especially in more northern latitudes, meaning the most consistent source of food for human consumption during pre-agricultural periods were animal-based. Also people in different parts of the world, and even different tribes in the same region, maintained their nutrition with different methods. Some tribes subsisted entirely on animal products, and none are known to have subsisted exclusively on plant products. It was known early on that many/most plant products required considerable preparation to make them edible, and most food plants have been made much more edible over the domestication process, with different tribes using different plants and methods of preparation. Some plants that were once not used for nutrition, but as "medicines", gradually were made edible and became nutrition sources over time. These changes allowed humans to gradually increase plant consumption over time and in certain regions.

    The idea that humans crave starches and sugar and have enzymes and so many copies of genes involved with carb consumption in no way demonstrates that carbs dominated the diet. It actually shows that edible carbs were scarce enough that humans had to be highly motivated to find and consume them. If a beneficial resource is scarce, biology makes the organism more motivated to find that resource. The fact that our extreme sugar addictions have now created an obesity epidemic shows that our desire for that taste is now excessive compared to its availability, a fact that is only recently true.

    Agriculture massively increased our consumption of grains, and our genome itself has adapted to this change somewhat. This massive increase in calorie availability allowed human populations to increase exponentially and is the foundation of human civilization, so there is little reason for people to vilify grains, as some do. But grains do have the effect of fattening people up, and their livestock too, so the concept that eliminating grains could help reduce weight makes sense, and the science supports the idea. The Paleo diet more closely mimics the diet of our more distant ancestors, yes, those ancestors that were constantly on the brink of starving to death. We only have to take a look around to see that most people today are far from starving to death, and that a little "Paleo" could be good for them. To be accurately "Paleo" a few whole grain bowls of mush might be allowed here and there, especially if you want to use Paleo as a lifestyle, rather than as a weight-loss plan. If it's used as a weight-loss plan, yes, eliminate the grains. Pretending that eliminating grains and calling it a 'Paleo' diet is inaccurate solely because some tribes ate some grains occasionally and grains that were very different than today's grains is just foolishness, and it in no way debunks the primary purpose of the diet, getting away from the extremely unhealthy typical modern diet.

  26. Charles Bronson

    It doesn't sound like this video takes into account the fiber in diets. There's a big difference between yams and coca cola.

  27. Something_to_appease_Google

    So they found some early humans ate roots. Hmmm. Who’s to say they didn’t just burn them and throw them out of disgust? The rest of the video was about yeast. What a joke.

  28. Jeff Baldwin

    I realize you're doing this for clickbait, but the paleo diet isn't anti-carb. Root vegetables are in fact one of the staples of the diet. Come on people, you're supposed to be good at research and here you are spreading misinformation. Paleo is anti-processed foods, not anti-carb.

  29. Gurvan Kervern

    First thank you for your videos especially the series on biology and chemistry, they are really interesting 🙂

    So sorry if the rest of this comment is going to be less nice but this video sadly falls in the all too common "science guys wants to show his knowledge and will refute something everyone believes to show he knows better and has the latest cutting edge info, but without stopping 10 seconds to apply critical thinking and/or common sense" category, imho :p

    – surely our ancestors could find and dig up a potato plant, but what was the concentration of those plants? Unless we admit sweet potatoes congregated together in fields spontaneously 100000 years before the advent of agriculture?
    We know from direct witnesses that Plains Indians (Sioux, Cheyennes, Comanches, etc. I'm translating from French, I don't know the last politically correct term for summer 2019) ate some plants, roots, etc, but we also know the vast majority of their calories came from the buffalo, and when large hordes of buffalos became a thing of the past they had to go live in reservations to be fed by the US government because their main source of calories was gone…

    – most plants have been modified a lot in the last few hundred years for agriculture : wild bananas are full of seeds and not eaten by humans, broccoli was man made by the Romans, etc. 50000 years ago there was not nearly as much edible plants for humans as today, meat on the other hand was readily available (unfortunately it could also consume you depending on the species…)

    – seasons were not invented with agriculture. In Europe there is a winter, especially during glaciation periods like our ancestors lived through… Having starches as a food more than in summer would have necessited means of conservation and granaries, both of which Paleolithic men had not… 😉

    – Europeans met lots of hunter gatherers still not connected to our civilization up to the early 20th century. Those people were basically still living in the Paleolithic (no agriculture, no metal working, no writing, that's prehistory), so I find it curious when people say we need the very last scientific study of last week to really know something about prehistoric men, when we can also read books by people who met and sometimes lived for years with populations basically still living in prehistory.
    We know some that ate lots of plants in hot climates but in cold climates animals were the main source of food because there is a "death" of plants for months at a time. Different populations have lived in very different environments : Africans have never known glaciations, so populations living in tropical climates probably had more access to edible plants than our ancestors in Europe living in a more tundra-like environment for millenias, they probably had a diet closer to the Inuits or Samoyedes or Vikings, populations who ate only or mostly animals.

    – and we can find different genes in different populations today because they were isolated for very long times during prehistory : Blacks have no genes from Neanderthal while Whites and Asians do, but only Melanesians and Papuans have Denisova genes, etc. So acting like we all have the same set of genes is ridiculous, especially when Europeans still met fairly isolated populations regularly 100+ years ago. Genomes don't evolve very fast but somehow the genomes of all human populations merged in 4 generations?
    Who is the hunter gatherer from 8000 years ago that had 13 copies of that gene? Afaik there was only Homo sapiens sapiens left by then so that would confirm different populations have different "genetic stock", which would only make sense.

    – the fact you can eat something doesn't mean you do it a lot : dogs can eat vegetables (like more and more vegans force them to), but can you name one wild canine that lives on plant rather than hunt/scavenge? (wolves, coyotes, hyenas, dingos, etc, they all primarily eat meat despite their "vegetable genes") Rabbits and squirrels can eat meat occasionnaly, especially during winter, that doesn't mean they are carnivores, or even omnivores.

    Just out of curiosity, what plant(s) were your ancestors in Europe living on during winter in the middle of a glaciation? Sweet potato? How did they get access to it? They flew it via pterodactyle with the NeanDertHaL delivery service? 🙂

    And afaik paleo dieters say you must avoid grains at all cost, not starches, and they do eat tubers, so you really built a strawman in that video…

  30. Demetrius Botyuk

    Hank, can hanseniaspora be a cancer? I know that yeasts are single celled organisms, but what prevents them from mutating into cancer? What you're describing – the rapid mutations and growth, and the lack of DNA repair- sounds like cancer.

    This is a novel perspective, as we are accustomed in seeing cancer in multicellular organisms. What if single cellular organisms can become cancer? How many organisms that exist today are technically cancer? How many organisms went extinct because they turned into cancer, and outcompeted the ancestors the originated from? Are they dangerous and carcinogenic for people to eat?

  31. Theeraphat Sunthornwit

    Carb….. all meat have some percent of carb in it…
    Quite sure paleo ban grain, which is a fruit of agriculture… not all starch, esp from root veggie.

    1 human eating something shouldnt be able to represent the majority of human at that time.

  32. Drew M

    So how accurate is that number of 100,000? Carbon dating is impossible to accurately calculate on really old objects. Especially anything older than 50,000 years. They throw around a ton of these big numbers that sound cool and big but don't really mean anything… It came from this planet we didn't invent carbs.. we've probably been eating them more or less the whole time in varying quantities, but no one will ever truly know how long that's been for.

  33. Martyn Cook

    I'm confused why they would believe humans didn't eat a lot of carbs before agriculture. If you look at hunter-gatherer communities now-a-days almost all of them have starchy food as a staple.

  34. WOLFMAN1469

    Yes, caveman love sugar, preservatives, and high fructose corn syrup. Science so smart, come to quick conclusion. Burned root is only food not medicine or firewood experiment.

    Science now finding genes more complex after saying no big deal with GMOs just a year ago.

  35. AngelLestat2

    the only thing that the paleo diet does not include are sugars and flours, starch is found in most vegetables.
    So not sure who could have said that we just eat meat (or mostly meat) in the paleolithic, it is stupid, that was always knew, so not sure what are your sources, but scientist were not wrong in the way you want to point.

  36. James Monahan

    Grain crushed to powder, mixed with water, and cooked over a fire is the oldest known processed food. Yes, processed food is older than farming. But bringing forth crops from the ground, is what made us in God's image. Allowing us to better feed ourselves, and so, we gave God a day off. (But just one.)

  37. Kimberly M

    BUT the difference IS: oats and peas and parsnips thousands of years ago. Cheese doodles, soda pop, and potato chips today. I'll give you one guess as to which carbs were good for you and which aren't.

    We overdo the carbs to the point that obesity is commonplace now: it's changed a LOT over the past few decades. Fat people were an unusual sight when I was a kid. One of my aunts was obese and boy oh boy did she stand out in a crowd. Now, she's just average. I partly blame the "fat-free" craze as carbs, especially sugar, were subbed in for the fats that are necessary for foods to taste good and digest properly. Now, throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn't a great idea (especially since fad dieting fails almost every time due to being a temporary fix), however we are consuming enough carbs PER PERSON to keep a whole group of hunter-gatherers satisfied.

  38. Spicy Artisan Hipster Salami

    I’d imagine that folks ate pretty much anything that didn’t eat or poison them first… I know I wouldn’t have been picky

  39. DeKrampus 11111

    One would assume a real paleo diet would consist of nuts, berries, grains, larger fruits (all full of carbs), legumes, vegetables, and animal proteins (when available), in the warmer months. A heavier, grain, tree nut, root vegetable, animal protein (when available) diet, in the cooler months. But hey! I'm no scientist, so what the hell do I know? I'm just going by our early ancestors, being hunter/gatherers and their transient behavior.

  40. R Jonas

    But how many carbs made up the human diet before agriculture could produce large quantities of starches? Even if humans figured out that grains could be cooked and eaten, they couldn’t have had too many before figuring out to grow them.

  41. Cheesus Sliced

    Carbs and starches were a rare but easy energy source, often with a very limited life span (see fruit), so it makes sense that we would eat them, and when available eat whatever was available (also explains why carbs shut off the satiety hormone and make you hungrier) and store most of it as fat for when we can't successfully hunt.

  42. varasano

    I think this misstates the position of paleo. We have long been omnivores. It's a question of proportion. Hunter gatherers might find a potato here and there but it's not the same as living on wonder bread and mountain dew. Cutting carbs to a relatively small level is still best and the previous demonization of meats and animal fats was wrong and needed correcting. Paleo / Atkins / Keto got more right than the food pyramid, for sure

  43. Ayman Abdellatief

    Even if humans ate starches 100k years ago, I doubt they ate multiples times a day and I doubt they ate refined sugars and heavily refined foods. The ones that survived to adulthood and didn’t starve were probably pretty healthy. I am sure they were a lot more physically active back then too.

  44. john doe

    its mind blowing how overconfident scientists and the people who study science can be
    If you think prehistoric man was dumb you might be as dumb as you think he was.
    none of this stuff was news to me only the "hard evidence" for it.

  45. DAYBROK3

    they were hunters and Gatherers, most of the calories were gathered by the females. lots of things that were gathered were grains seeds nuts and berries. not much salad there.

  46. Kapryan Kennedy

    Wow you guys at "Brilliant" sound so smart… until some one who lives on a paleo diet actually listens and realizes that you don't know the first thing about the paleo diet. So break out the Wonder Bread, fill a glass of Coca Cola, and spead the cheese whizz because "Paleo got it Wrong". I bet your sponsors like the Title!

    Paleo is not about carbs or meat, sugar, or gluten. It's about eating natural unprocessed foods as they are found in nature. Unprocessed whole grains, root vegetables, green vegetables, fungus, fruits, fish, fowl, reptile, mollusks, crustaceans, red meat, primates ( lowly evolved and highly evolved), and then some, were all on the menu. No additives, no extra sugar, artificial vitamins, color, or flavor. But hey, you guys must be smarter than me (and younger) because you call yourself "Brilliant!". It"s a free country eat all the scientific modern processed food you want because us Paleo types got it wrong. Hope you get to live as long as I do! (BTW you should pray for universal health care!)

  47. Adolfo padilla

    Well, there are other sources of carbs that are not mentioned here…. ehem,,ehem… BRAINS!!!!! give me some BRAINS!!!

  48. Bill Kong

    It should be said that wild tubers are not anything like as starch rich as potatoes and the like. Most of them I've tried are pretty tough and fibrous and bitter.

  49. mianormalis

    DUUUUH… It's sort of a no-brainer that early humans have to have eaten the plants looong loooooooooong before they ended up cultivating them. Why and how the hell else would they come up with the idea to do so otherwise?

  50. harry viking

    If you do not manage to get meat/fish , you need to eat other things…like berries, roots/yams! Its called survival food if nothing better was available.

  51. Aelwyn

    Sooooo…. yeast loses genetic information. Becomes…. yeast. And voila! It evolved! 🤔

    Last time I checked, evolution is one type of creature becoming a completely different type of creature. This sounds like basic adaptation to me…

  52. Opposers Dismythed/ JW Advisor

    Seeing as no discovery of human remains goes back more than 30,000 years (supposedly, according to argon dating), how can anyone make a claim about human diets going back 100,000 years? Obviously, it's theorists with no actual data. A gain of 7 gene copies over 8,000 years suggedts the entire set could be acquired over 25,000 years. Also, I would like to see what the natural variance between different humans is. My guess is that it is rather great given how genes work. This so called "study" is highly suspect. 120,000 year old char bed with grains. No signs of human life present, but it's proof?

  53. Robert Gregg

    But not butt loads of processed sugars. We ate roots, vegetables, fruits. Not pure cane sugar, and high Fructose corn syrup.

  54. Nerine

    Well heck old son, I coulda told ya that!😍🥔🍞🥐🥖🥨🥯🍔🍟🍕🌭🥪🌮🌯🥙🍘🍙🍚🍜🍠🍝🍣🍥🥮🍨🍧🍦🍦🥠🥟🥧🍪🎂🍰🍫🍮🍭🍬🍷🍺

  55. WarmWeatherGuy

    You can tell what we ate by looking at our teeth and our digestive tract. Our teeth are good for both meat and plants. Our shortened digestive tract means that our ancestors ate lots of meat. Your appetite for Pringles is irrelevant. There is all sorts of "food" made by corporations to get you addicted that are not desirable.

  56. Krankar Volund

    Well, it seems logical in fact. I mean, why would you spend dozens of hours of work to plant wheat if you don"t eat wheat? If humans didn't eat wtarches before the agriculture, why the first peasants plan starches? ^^

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *