On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:42:55 -0600, Philip <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> In my case gaining weight had always been extremely difficult until I
> reached around age 32, regardless of activity level and despite trying
> weight lifting and eating plenty of high-calorie foods such as  
> weight-gain shakes to gain weight. I eventually accepted that I wasgoing  
> to stay thin.

I had exactly the same problem.  That's part of the reason I developed the  
habit of eating as much as I wanted of whatever I wanted.  I couldn't gain  
weight no matter what I did up until I got the sit-down job.

> I think I probably experienced a decline in metabolic rate.

I have often heard it said that metabolic rate declines with age.  (But I  
still think it's more activity that declines, and metabolism follows.  At  
least for the majority of people.)

> Either my metabolic rate has increased again due to my change in diet,  
> or it is just very difficult for me to gain weight eating Paleo foods.

I think this is likely very true.  Despite having plenty of vitamins and  
minerals, there just aren't that many calories in vegetables -- you can  
eat huge mounds of them and not worry about it.  Fruit and nuts are more  
calorie-dense but they seem to be self-limiting (you can only eat so many  
before you tire of them).  The same with meat -- pretty dense calorie  
source, but you just don't want to eat that much of it at once.

> Do you have to pay as close attention to the quantities on the Paleo  
> diet?

Not really.  I pretty much eat whatever I want, whenever I want.  But I  
can still overdo it -- it's a lot easier for modern man to go pick up a  
pound of nuts or meat or whatever from the grocery store than it is for  
the HG to pick up and shell a bunch of nuts, or hunt down an antelope.   
These days, there are far less calories involved by the person doing the  
eating.

> Also, you may have a "large" frame (more bone).

Possibly, but I wouldn't think so.  My wrists are only about 7 1/2" around.

> Since your activity level apparently did not increase during those 15  
> years of weight gain, your weight gain in your 20's would presumably  
> have been
> mostly fat, rather than muscle.

True.  Another of those trends I insisted on reversing.

> Speaking of visible abs, have you checked
> out the 6-pack abs of the Bannock Indians (ca. 1880) in the photo in the
> first issue of Dr. Cordain's newsletter
> (http://thepaleodiet.com/newsletter/newsletters/PaleoNewsletterVol1Issue1.pd
> f)? The Bannock were Plains Indians who hunted buffalo (American bison).

Of course.  Ever tried to run down a buffalo?  :-)

(Seriously -- I've investigated raising bison, and have developed a  
tremendous respect for anyone who would attempt to take such a beast while  
barefoot with little more than a pointy stick.)

> Or do a Google image search on Australian
> aborigines to see how lean they can be when they maintain a traditional  
> diet and lifestyle and how obese they can get when they adopt the modern  
> diet and lifestyle.

Indeed.  But how much is the diet part, and how much is the "and  
lifestyle" part?

> It appears that the leanest
> HG's tend to be those that eat more (wild) land-based meat (like bison or
> kangaroo) and less starches or sea animals and don't live in the cold
> Arctic, where the Eskimos have apparently been naturally selected for  
> more fat cells.

That's interesting.  At first glance it would appear that the leaner ones  
have less fat in their diet (based on my thinking that wild game on land  
has less fat stores than ocean animals, which may not hold true depending  
on which animals are in question).

> some health authorities have been putting out the opposite message--that
> being a little plump is actually healthy. Some scientists have pointed  
> out that their data indicating that plump people are healthier than lean  
> people is likely skewed by those who lose weight due to illness.

That seems really odd -- to base a conclusion of a "healthy" weight on  
someone who has just lost a bunch *due to illness*.

> Since I don't know of any HG's who consciously limit or count their 
> calories, and the HG San of the Kalahari
> eat about the same amount of calories per day as Americans (2,140 /day

For what it's worth, I lose weight at that calorie level.  My maintenance  
level is about 3K/day.

> HG leanness seems to have less to do with calorie
> counting than with the types of foods ingested. Physical activity also  
> plays a role, of course,

Agreed.

>> I'm nothing special at all, *everyone* should be this healthy.
>
> That's right, and it would be possible if we hadn't long ago exceeded the
> earth's capacity for sustaining people on a HG diet and lifestyle.

I think we're past the point of sustaining this many people on *any* diet  
and lifestyle.  But that's a whole 'nother discussion.  ;-)

-- 
   Robert Kesterson
   [log in to unmask]