tastes like... untamed!

 

 

for all the friends from Trieste:
next sunday i'll hold the fifth and last meeting dedicated to sensorial rewilding.this time we'll focus on the sense of taste.
See you there!

eating with our ancestors...

 

want to share a meal with our ancestors from the pre-agricoltural era and from the ancent Rome?
if you live in the Trieste area, this is for you!

foraging anyone?

 

anyone in the trieste area interested in foraging?
next sunday i'll hold a meeting dedicated to edible wild plants.
see you there!

nutriscore anyone?

 

usually i tend to program the posts of this blog but from time to time something new happens so i decide to cover some issues that weren't planned. this is one of these cases.
the nutriscore is not something new, but lately there has been a lot of chitchat (both online and on newspapers) on this matter, and most of the comments are, in my opinion, sorta confusing. the nutriscore is an european system that is supposed to classify foods in a traffic-light fashion according to their level of healthiness. ideally flawless. informing the consumers on the quality of the food they are going to buy with a simple system of ranking and with a clear symbol on the packaging is a great idea, as it gives the information but at the same time leaves the buyer free to decide what to eat and what to avoid. but this supposes that the given info is true and universally admitted by the scientific community.
too bad that in many cases the ranking system seems to be totally misleading. a few examples: red meat is considered dangerous (and that's obvious and universally recognized) while other types of meat and fish are considered healthy (while there are many studies clearly showing that chicken meat is often full of antibiotics and that fish is loaded with particles of plastic and heavy metals). most dairy products are considered unhealthy (and that is obvious and universally acknowledged for all dairy products), while soft drinks with artificial sweeteners are considered safe (while according to many studies they are as bad as those with added sugar). low-fat industrial snacks are considered safe while olive oil is considered unhealthy because of its caloric content (i don't use olive oil as i prefer eating olives so to get also all the other nutrients they're packed with and not only the fat, but honestly i won't say that olive oil is unsafe, especially if compared with industrial snacks). well, just considering these few examples makes clear that the nutriscore ranking system is not that reliable. but all the media coverage and the comments that are appearing almost everywhere (especially in my country) seem even more misleading. the nutriscore is considered as the result of the marketing strategies of the corporate foor industry, generating a global and inexpensive advertising campaign for their products at the expense of small-scale producers.
and i agree, there are good chances that it's true. but the fact that the nutriscore may be a big lie does not make red meat or dairy products healthy. they are still unhealthy, as are unhealthy all soft drinks, chicken meat and fish.
nowadays there is so much info (both online and offline) on the safety and healthiness of a whole food plant-based diet that there's no need and no space for both the nutriscore and the claims of the small-scale producers of meat and dairy.

fed up (the movie): a politically incorrect review

with the covid-19 emergency still running, i am still here at home trying to get the most out of my days of quarantine. so, after some work, some indoor exercise and a lot of planning about what i am going to do when all this will be over, i read more and i watch more movies too.
watching movies, tv shows and fiction in general usually makes me fall asleep. it's just from time to time that it happens that i am able to watch something from start to end without sleeping, and usually it's because it's really good or because it makes me angry. the movie "fed up" belongs to both categories.
“fed up” is 2014 documentary by Stephanie Soechtig about the relation between the standard western diet and the obesity epidemic that is affecting the US citizens, with a particular focus on its effects on children and teens. the whole movie comprehends the stories of some teens and their families who are fighting to loose some weight, plus many interviews to doctors, nutritionists and politicians on the same issue.
as i said, i found this movie to be extremely good in some things but extremely irritating in others. it's extremely good in all the info it provides about the damages that processed food causes to our health, with lots of details about the effects of sugar (and all the sugar-added foodstuffs), soft drinks and refined carbs. honestly, i think it's really hard to pack so much information is a movie that lasts just a little more of 90 minutes, so thumbs up for this.
now... the thumbs down part. as i said, there's a lot of detailed info on the effects of sugar on our health, but we all know that the standard western diet does not comprehend only sugar and refined carbs in excess but also an amount of meat and other animal products that would be considered unbelievable till a few decades ago. well, the movie says something about milk and diary (very little, to be honest) but nothing at all about meat and other animal products, while all the most recent studies have proved that animal products (and especially red meat that is so common in the standard western diet) are as detrimental to our health as sugar and refined carbs or even more. not a word about this in "fed up". why? at the end of the movie there are some sequences where the teens and their families are trying to eat better, putting just vegetables in their dishes. that's good, but why not to mention the damages that meat does to the body of a frugivorous primate like the homo sapiens?
but that's not the only thing that made me angry. one of background leitmotif that goes on for the whole movie is that the US government isn't doing enough against the obesity epidemic, as it's bowing down to the food industry's demands. that could be considered a strong argument during the last century, when the tv and the commercials were considered bulletproof truths because people had less possibilities to obtain other information. nowadays everyone can access to all the needed info with just a few clicks on the web, not to mention that even the traditional media like the tv and the magazines are providing daily a lot of details on diets and the lifestyles that can actually improve our health. once again, blaming governments for the way we feed ourselves means canceling the personal responsibility on our own body. and once again, this is terribly wrong and causes as many damages as the commercials and the marketing strategies of the food industry. why do people need the government to protect their health with a proper diet when they can do it themselves? i don't think that someone is actually forcing trash food in their throat. people are free to choose what to eat. children and teens obviously need some guidance, but that should be up to the families. people need to grow up and take the responsibility of their choices, not to live constantly under the supervision of institutions that tell them what to do.
another thing that i found quite irritating of the movie concerns a statement on which the media and the fitness experts insisted a lot during the last decades: the fact that a condition of overweight or obesity depends on the sum of two factors, too much food and too little movement (or more shortly, too many calories in plus too little calories out). according to the theory expressed in the movie, this statement isn't totally true as the quantity of movement a person makes (the burnt calories) isn't as important as the quality of the food, and it aims to make overweight people feel guilty for their condition and to blame themselves instead of taking action against the government that is lying to them about the risks of a trash-food-based diet. well, i am not saying that the quality of food isn't that important (we all know that our body reacts to improper food releasing chemicals that alter its function, favoring the storage of body fat) but it's also true that people are lazy and don't move too much. even people that consider themselves physically active (as if going to the gym three times per week could be considered having an active lifestyle) are actually sedentary. our body is designed to move. in nature a primate moves all day, except when she's sleeping or feeling sick. we don't, and in fact many of us are fat. what many humans consider a strong training routine is just a tamed, watered down and scaled down version of what our body really needs to stay healthy. have you ever seen an endurance athlete being overweight? i don't, and believe me, not all athletes love to eat properly, many of them like indulging in trash food. but if a trustworthy source of info like the ones presented in the movie says that exercising a lot isn't as important as eating sugar-free food, then people will start to justify their own laziness, once again blaming the governments and the media for conspiring against themselves. and we really don't need one more excuse to be lazy, don't we?

way worse than covid-19...

while the whole world is worried for the spreading of the new corona virus, something much more dangerous is jeopardizing the future of the mankind, and it's something that has to do with antibiotics and the animal products industry.
we all know that antibiotics are largely used in the farming industry, but not everyone considers the severe impact the same antibiotics have on human health. farm animals, due to the poor conditions they are forced to live, have to be treated against infections quite often because of self-mutilations and wounds caused by the continuous contact with the cages, stress, overpopulation and lack of hygiene. by consequence breeders, in fear of loosing their investment, make extensive use of this class of medications. if just one animal gets ill or gets an infection, then all the animals of the same holding undergo antibiotic treatment. in many cases antibiotics are administered as prevention too: as it's highly likely that farm animals get ill during their short life, they are constantly kept on antibiotics.
these habits have two major effects on human health. the first one affects just the consumer of animal products that will eat some antibiotic and some hormone at every meal. obviously being constantly exposed to some doses of medication, especially if not needed, isn't good for our health. the second one is even more serious, as it affects all of us independently from our eating habits and represents a real menace to the survival of our species.
basically, the fact that livestock is treated daily with high doses of antibiotics does not exclude the fact that in the farming facilities large amounts of pathogenic bacteria are able to live and prosper. these bacteria are in constant contact with the livestock, but since the breeder administers piles of antibiotics, for a while nothing happens: bacteria are defeated by the medicines and the animals don't get infections. but as all other living things, bacteria evolve and adapt, developing some techniques to survive in a given habitat. generation after generation they become stronger and more resistant to antibiotics. so after a while antibiotics become useless: farm animals, even if treated with high doses of medication, have no defense and even a simple infection can lead them to death. but the same bacteria that affect animals (and that learned to resist against antibiotics) can attack humans and the antibiotics used for the livestock contain exactly the same active ingredients used for human medications. so if a human comes into contact with bacteria that learned to be antibiotic-resistant, the antibiotic treatment will be useless and she will be completely defenseless against even the simplest kind of infection. this means that in just few years we may find ourselves back in time to the pre-antibiotic era, when it was possible to die just for the consequences of an infected wound.
antibiotic resistance represents one of the most severe menaces for human health. it's not discussed that much but the available data are alarming: since scientists started to study the phenomenon, only in italy more than five thousand people died because of infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria. a research done in 2014 reveals that more than 12 percent of chicken meat available on the market is infected with salmonella, and over 80 percent of the salmonella bacteria proved to be antibiotic-resistant. despite this, the amount of antibiotics used in the farming industry isn't decreasing: it's calculated that more than 70 percent of the antibiotics produced in the world is used in factory farming facilities.
when antibiotic-resistant bacteria will evolve and become able to spread through human-to-human contagion as they do now with animal-to-animal contagion, we will be forced to face pandemics caused by pathogens that nowadays don't represent a menace anymore. ironically, it was the same discovery of antibiotics that contributed to double our life expectancy over the last century. in just few years, this advantage may be canceled. the reason for this debacle lies in the insane, dangerous and unhealthy habit of breeding animals for food supply. the consequences, in this case, will come down to all humans, including those following a plant-based diet.
mind, the first sentence of this post does not mean that i am underestimating the effects of the spreading of the new corona virus: there's a lot of people that, for a reason or another, find themselves with a weak immune system, and we have to protect them doing our best to avoid the spreading of the disease. similarly, i'd like meat eaters to do something (obviously, stop eating animal products) to protect all of us from the consequences of antibiotic resistance.

the effect on the environment of a fruitarian diet

some choice we can do in our daily life are so simple but at the same time so powerful that we can hardly understand their full potential. as already stated in many previous posts, a good example is the impact on the environment of our dietary choices: we already know that many products of animal origin have a dramatic impact on the environment, causing pollution and speeding up climate change.
with this post, i want to offer another point of view on the same subject. can we actually switch our perspective from a non-negative impact on the environment to a positive one? and if so, what are the best strategies for it? how can we actually improve the quality of the environment with our diet? the answer is very simple: we should go fruitarian. just consider this basic facts: we need more trees to fight pollution and to slow down global warming. but this means using some soil to plant them, and we know that soil is an important economic resource and that many countries won't agree to use it for trees without a financial return. still, as consumers we are able to turn trees into something extremely profitable... just increasing the request for fruits. if more fruits are required worldwide, more trees have to be planted. more trees in every corner of the world means obviously less CO2 in the atmosphere.
sounds too easy to be true, doesn't it? but that's it. it's just another example of the incredible power we have as consumers. we live in the consumer society where the laws of most countries follow the market needs, and this means that, when shopping for groceries, we can actually modify the rules and by consequence change the world. there's no need to make pressure on world leaders to do something for our future, we can do it everyday just changing our eating habits.
i know, going fruitarian may seem too extreme for many people (actually it's much easier that it seems but i can understand that many of you don't feel ready to base all their diet on fruits). the good news is that there's no need to go 100% fruitarian to have a positive impact on the environment. as long as we we ban from our diet the most environmentally detrimental food (once again, all animal products), just the fact of increasing the daily consumption of fruits will effect the global demand for trees to be planted. which leads, obviously, to a healthier atmosphere and a better future for our planet.
it's up to us. we can make the difference day by day.

stop food waste day

tomorrow italian people will celebrate the national stop food waste day. statistics say that every italian citizen wastes about 36 kilos of food every year. many people consider it to be a lot, and actually it is especially if we think of the areas where global hungry is still a problem.
still, that's just a small portion of all the food waste that happens daily in every corner of the world. the fact is that most waste happens way before the food arrives on the shelves of the supermarket when consumers finally buy it. it's a matter of choosing the way we want to feed ourselves.
in modern times, humans choose to use the largest part of the resources they have at their disposal for feeding animals they enslave and kill in order to convert them into another type of food. but let's focus on some data: a dairy cow drinks 200 liters of water every day and requires a high caloric intake (from 12.000 to 54.000 kcal daily, depending on the zootechnical schedules). an adult human being needs just an average of 2000 kilocalories to stay healthy. so it's quite obvious that the food used daily to feed a single cow is more than enough to nourish and maintain in good health a number of humans from 6 to 27. now let's do the math. the total number of cows farmed all over the world is well over 1 billion. by consequence, the simple fact of quitting rearing cows would generate a food surplus that could satisfy the nutritional needs of a number of humans going from 6 to 27 billions. given that nowadays world hunger affects less than 800 millions people, the solution to this longstanding issue would be easy. using the resources that are currently used to rear cows to feed hungry people would solve forever the problem of world hunger.
yet, most humans prefer to turn forests into desert to produce food that will be used to feed abused and exploited animals whose meat will make obese a part of the global population and clog their arteries. at the same time another part of the global population ends up being undernourished and expropriated of the soil and the resources that could be used to satisfy its subsistence needs.
the objection I often hear on this issue is that the whole line of reasoning falls short as humans cannot live eating grass like cows do. well, actually farmed cows would like to eat grass but the breeders, in order to speed up the growth and the increase in weight, feed them with a mixture of cereals and soy, a high-energy and protein rich food that could be used to feed humans in each stage of their life.
so, celebrating stop food waste day remains a good idea, but what about doing something concrete for it like removing all animal products from our diet?

the shopping cart (r)evolution

i've already expressed my view on the fridays for future movement in a recent post. now, with cop25 in madrid, the attention is again on climate change and on worldwide protests. and once again, in my opinion, we're missing the point. protesting against the governments and the politicians we're delegating our future to someone else and at the same time we underestimate the power we have as consumers.
the larger part of the damage we cause constantly on the environment depends on our daily habits, and i'm not referring only to the way we move or the way we move things around. what we eat is even more important. the production of meat, dairy and all animal products have a dramatic impact on the environment. it requires a lot of soil and a lot of water. breeding itself (especially in the case of cows) causes a production of CO2 way larger of cars and planes.
if we really want to change things, we have to act daily, modifying the way we live. going vegan is obviously the first thing to do. obviously reducing to a bare minimum the use of cars and other engine-powered vehicles is important too. e-powered vehicles too have an impact on the environment, as electricity has to be produced in a way or another (and in most countries only a small portion of electricity is produced from renewable fonts).
changing our habits we will modify the global market creating different needs and by consequence politicians and world leaders will be forced to change the rules accordingly, following the new trends. so, as consumers, the first move is our to make. that's how we should expect things to happen, not the opposite. but as always protesting against the government or waiting for something crucial coming from cop25 is easier than modifying our lifestyle, and as always too many people choose to do the easier things even if they're totally useless.

many problems, one solution

it's all over the media. we all know that our planet isn't doing very well in the last decades. global warming is the most discussed problem but the quality of our environment depends also on other factors. overpopulation has to be considered as one of the most crucial issues that should be solved extremely quickly. the human population is constantly growing. we're too many and our planet doesn't have enough resources for all of us.
then there is the fact that we are using its resources in a very irrational way, wasting a lot of water, land and food.
at the same time, the average health of our species is degrading too. in europe more than half of the population is overweight, while the 23% of the women and the 20% of the men are actually obese. to make matters worse, the 23% of the children between 5 and 10 years of age is overweight and the 11% is obese. we know what comes with obesity: the incidence of type 2 diabetes, that is closely related to bad eating habits and physical inactivity, is steadily growing. the incidence of cardiovascular diseases, especially among young adults, is growing at the same rate and the increase in cases of cancer in the last decades has been even more relevant: statistically nowadays one person out of three will receive a diagnosis of cancer during his life. an even more significant fact is that in 2016 the life expectancy of the european citizens decreased for the first time since world war II.
apparently, the bad status of both the environment and the average health of the population may seem unrelated, but all animals live in constant balance with their environment, humans make no exception so we can't expect anything good if this balance is lost. an exaggerate number of individuals of the same species constantly depleting the planet of its resources is the perfect recipe for a disaster.
the main problem is that economy worldwide is based on an irrational way to use the resources. our species uses land, water and food to breed animals that, on their turn, will become food for humans. in doing so, a lot of resources are wasted. just consider that to produce a single kilogram of meat the animal that would be slaughtered has to eat 15 kilograms of cereals, food that could be used for human nutrition. this means that for every kilogram of food produced, 14 kilograms have been wasted. producing this insanely large amount of food that is going to be wasted requires a lot in terms of soil, water, storage and transportation. there's a lot of data online on this subject and there's no need to repeat it all again on this blog. just do your researches checking also the UNEP and the FAO documents on this issue (and sorry for the self-promotion, but there's a lot on this same subject in my book too).
when two apparently different problems depend on the same factors, there are good chances that both can be solved with the same solution. and this is the case too. as individuals we can't do very much for overpopulation, but there is something crucial that we can do on a daily basis, as it depends on our personal choices. we can change our lifestyle, making it more sustainable and respectful of our planet and all its inhabitants. the first thing to do is obviously adopting a plant-based diet, avoiding all animal products. a simple choice like this one will improve extremely quickly our health (again, there's a lot of info online on this subject, do your research) and at the same time we won't contribute to the constant waste of resources that is destroying our planet. plus, in doing so we will not cause the exploitation and slaughtering of millions of innocent animals.
the second thing to do is to become more physically active. this means walking more, using bicycles, mopeds, skateboards and all kind of human-powered vehicles. obviously this will have a positive effect on our health but also on the environment, as we will avoid using fossil fuels or other forms of energy (electricity included), saving it for something else.
back on the topic of nutrition, let me add one more thing. basing the big part of our diet on fresh, local and seasonal fruits is the best choice if we really want to protect our health and the environment. we'll get a lot of vitamin and antioxidants and at the same time it will create a virtuous circle in the economy of our area, as a larger demand of fresh fruits will cause an increased need of soil for growing trees, and obviously a larger number of trees will improve the quality of the atmosphere. but it's also a matter of being self-aware and honest to ourselves: i am going to eat what my body is able to eat without technology (not even a fire or a knife), so fruits are the best option.
following the same line of thinking, i am going to go where my energy levels allow me to go and i am going to do what my body is capable of doing without external aids. if i want to do something or to reach some places but the limits of my body and my energy levels don't allow me to do it, it means that i have to work my ass till i get to the point when i am able to do what i want. obviously this applies to our leisure activities, organizing our working schedule and our whole life according to these principles may be hard if not impossible for many people.
still, if we live as much as possible accordingly to our natural limits we improve our fitness level, we stay in balance with our environment without damaging it and by consequence we don't hurt, kill or exploit other living creatures. i know, it seems too simple (and too good) to be true, but that's just the power that we have as consumers. let's use it.

intermittent fasting: find your way

recently there's a lot of interest on the benefits of intermittent fasting especially in terms of longevity and prevention of chronic and degenerative diseases. new researches on this subject are published almost monthly. intermittent fasting means avoiding anything caloric for a given period of time (be it a portion of the day of a full day every week). the most popular example of intermittent fasting is the 16/8, which means a timeframe of 8 hours a day for eating and 16 hours of fasting. other popular ways of intermittent fasting are the 20/4 (4 hours of eating and 20 of fasting), the warrior diet (eating one meal a day, usually in the evening) and the 6/1 (a full day of fasting every week). for people who can't stand fasting there's another possibility: two days a week of extreme caloric restriction (in the range of 700-800kcal/day), which means big portions of vegetables (obviously with no oils) to fill the stomach. so there are a lot of options and everyone interested can choose the one that fits better with her/his lifestyle and personal preferences.

i have experimented different approaches of intermittent fasting with different results. i have to say that fasting isn't exactly my cup of tea: i like to eat and i eat a lot, my days are quite long (starting at 4 AM and finishing at 11 PM) and intense with a lot of physical activity during the whole day. plus, i can't stand timeframes and time limits in particular for something so crucial (and natural) as eating. putting some food in our mouth should be the most immediate answer to the feeling of hunger and in my opinion delaying the act of eating to a scheduled timeframe is totally unnatural, and going against our nature is usually wrong and unhealthy.

but then, why intermittent fasting has so many benefits for our health? well, once again considering the lifestyle and the habits of other primates can suggest the answer. our cousins gorillas do their form of intermittent fasting, so do our cousins chimps and many other non-human primates. it isn't their will to avoid eating for part of their day, but they are forced to do it by the laws of nature: at a certain time, the sun goes down and they just can't find the food till the next morning. this means about 13 or 14 hours of fasting every day. in human terms, this would be called a 14/10 protocol of intermittent fasting. for non-human primates, it's just what they can do.

and we should do the same: forget about clocks and time limits and eat when you feel the need of it during daytime (as long a we eat physiologically according to the needs of our species, obviously). when the sun goes down, rest. you'll eat the next morning when your eyes will be again able to identify a food source.  i'm pretty sure that this would be the best approach to intermittent fasting for humans too. still, i can't do it. the rhythms of our life are so unnatural that it becomes quite hard to live this way, and even if we're doing our best to live as naturally as possible, there are still many things that force us to be awake and active while we should be resting, and the eating patterns are a consequence of it. i think you know what i mean. for example, how many times you find yourself still working after dark? it happens almost daily to most people. how many of your social or leisure activities start after dark? for me, it happens regularly at least twice a week, with my martial arts training starting at 7:30 PM and continuing till 10:30 PM. should i go to bed without eating? it would be totally wrong, considering all the oxidation going on in our body after intense physical activities and whose effects can be successfully minimized with a large portion of vegetables.

so, after trying many different approaches of intermittent fasting, i found my own way, i call it “the reverse warrior forgiving strategy”: i have a large meal based mostly on fruits and raw starchy vegetables (packing about the 90% of my caloric needs) at breakfast, right after my daily workout that usually takes place between 4:30 and 6 AM. then during the day i have other two meals based mostly on vegetables, so it's a caloric restriction regimen that covers about 23 hours a day. the only exception takes place about twice a week, when the last meal of the day (yes, the one usually known as dinner) comprehends some fats (in the shape of oily seeds), as fat is better metabolized during the night. i know it's not the way our species would live in nature, but it's the best solution (and more sustainable over time) i have been able to find in this phase of my life.

if you're interested in giving intermittent fasting a try, my advice is trying the different protocols and to verify what fits better in your daily life. if you're not satisfied with any of them, find your own.

going paleo... the sapiens way

fruits, vegetables, oily seeds and meat. no grains and no diary. this is what is usually called a paleo diet. maybe it's not as popular as some years ago, but there are still many people around that decide to go paleo and to eat like our ancestors.
but are we sure that our species in the paleolithic era used to eat this way? surely there were some humans that used to eat lots of bushmeat, but their surname was neanderthal, they went extinct without leaving any significant bond of direct descent with the later species of hominids. our most direct ancestor from the paleolithic age was the homo ergaster, that many anthropologists consider as a subspecies of homo erectus. the ergaster was a kind of superhuman: the average height was 180 centimeters for the males and 167 centimeters for the females, so way more than today. the average size of brain was bigger too (1500 milliliters compared to today's 1240). the average weight was 66 kilograms (the 180cm-66kg ratio should make us reflect on how a human body is supposed to be in a natural state). still, the most interesting data is about longevity: mortality rate during early childhood was quite high but individuals who managed to survive the first 2-3 years of their life had a life expectancy between 74 and 80 years, quite similar to the most optimistic values of today. to grasp the actual meaning of these statistics, let's imagine a standard of living without any kind of medication, where even the smallest and most trivial wound can lead to infection and become a real risk and where any adverse weather event can be deadly dangerous. so a life expectancy between 74 and 80 years means that our ancestors were extremely robust and in perfect health.
the lifestyle of our ancestors during this stage of our evolution was extremely active: they moved all day looking for food, and every new ground they explored represented new challenges to face both physically and intellectually. they fed on all the vegetables they could find, be it fruits and leaves but also seeds, roots and legumes. those were the conditions that influenced permanently our evolution.
so... no meat? until some decades ago it was common belief that eating meat played a crucial role in our evolution and that hunting was the first trait to set us apart from other apes. actually that was a big misunderstanding about the role of meat consumption during the paleolithic era. luckily, since the 80s many anthropologists shed some light on this subject. our ancestors ergaster used to hunt big game, but only on rare occasions and it wasn't considered a source of food. big game hunting was a way to create social cohesion within a group and to establish a hierarchy among the males by showing force, bravery and endurance. the few times that the hunt actually finished with the killing of an animal, our ancestors just couldn't eat their prey, except for small portions. there are many evidences backing up this theory: anatomically, the ergaster wasn't able to throw something against a prey with enough precision to actually hit and kill it. from a nutritional point of view, bushmeat is very low in fat and very rich in protein: our body assimilates and turns into energy just little portions of protein (that's what causes the temporary weight loss occurring with the low-carb hi-protein diets) causing the creation of lots of waste products. so eating bushmeat would translate into a calorie intake so low that it couldn't compensate the energy used during the hunt, and a quantity of protein so high that it could actually be considered toxic for our body. even the simple act of chewing raw bushmeat is nutritionally uneconomical: a human being would burn more energy chewing it than he would gain digesting it. plus, in climatic conditions like those of the savannah, meat would remain edible just for a short timeframe, probably not even the time required to chop up a prey and chew the pieces.
so the homo ergaster actually ate some animal protein but, much like other apes, in an extremely low quantity and incidentally, usually in form of bugs and small animals that were swallowed with vegetables, and obviously such a small intake of animal protein had no relevance in the physical evolution of our species.
so if we want to go paleo and eat like our ancestors, we should feed ourselves just on fruits, raw vegetables, roots and oily seeds, and this is actually the way of eating of our cousins gorillas that have a digestive system extremely similar to ours. introducing meat in our diet would mean going neanderthal and not paleo.
why should we imitate the habits of someone who lost his battle for evolution ages ago and went extinct?