| palou said: Could you link a source for that 98% stat (specifically for anything pre-agriculture. That early agricultural societies mostly ate what they grew is both evident and irrelevant to the point.) I did not find any reliable souces on that. Thanks!
Anyways, back to the subject. You assume that prehistoric humans had access to alternatives to the mostly unedible predecessors of our modern crop. However, there is a reason why said ancestors were unedible in the past - anything but the fruit of the plant is something said plant does not want to get eaten, and they generally have some form of deterentto prevent animals from eating them - be it poison or simply bad nutritional value. Any modern animals that consume, in big part, natural vegetable matter has specifically evolved to surcomvent these hurdles. Rats, for example, can develop their caecum to digest fibres, if their environnement makes it necessary. Humans have nothing of the sort. Instead, we evolved crops to be increasingly fitting to our digestive capacities, removing poisons from beans, almonds, etc... As well as reducing fibers and increasing digestible sugars in roots, stems and leaves (which, in my opinion, is quite awesome.) |
Check out this video for that 98% figure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgc-6zZj034 (As always, check the video's several citations and decide for yourself based on the cited evidence). Another 98% plant-based population was the traditional diet of the Okinawans in Japan (1% fish, 1% all other animal products): http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-okinawa-diet-living-to-100/
And I don't assume anything. With the rehydration of human stool, we can know with near-certainty what ancient peoples ate. And it was predominantly fruit, flowers, and certain leaves, which gets around the concerns you cite.
| numberwang said: If you focus on the easy to acquire plants like lentils, noodles, beans, peas, rice etc- will you be fine with such a diet? I have no interest in complicated vegan diet plans with fancy fruits, but shifting back to more basic plants is something that I would consider more. |
Yes, you don't need to eat exotic foods at all. The populations that ate the most beans (and other legumes) and grains have traditionally been the longest living and most vibrant in old age. A great example of this is the Tarahumara in Mexico. Their tribe was split, with some ending up living in the U.S. and some living in Mexico after the border between the two was finalized. As the American contingent adopted the Western diet and culture, the Mexican side of the tribe (who ate their traditional diet of beans and other predominantly plant-based foods) started to live *decades* longer, whereas the American side of the tribe had a dramatic rise in incidences of heart disease, diabetes, etc. It doesn't have to be exotic foods, if you eat a variety of common fresh fruits, vegetables, grains, and lentils, you'll be eating the diet that is associated with the least amount of disease, and the highest quality of life in old age, in a variety of populations around the world.
For decades, people have overcomplicated plant-based diets by talking about protein combining (which your body can do for you anyway). It's actually pretty easy, so long as you keep your diet varied.
