↓ Skip to main content

Paleolithic vs. modern diets – slected pathophysiological implications

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Nutrition, June 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
210 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Paleolithic vs. modern diets – slected pathophysiological implications
Published in
European Journal of Nutrition, June 2000
DOI 10.1007/s003940070032
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stanley Boyd Eaton, Stanley Boyd Eaton III

Abstract

The nutritional patterns of Paleolithic humans influenced genetic evolution during the time segment within which defining characteristics of contemporary humans were selected. Our genome can have changed little since the beginnings of agriculture, so, genetically, humans remain Stone Agers--adapted for a Paleolithic dietary regimen. Such diets were based chiefly on wild game, fish and uncultivated plant foods. They provided abundant protein; a fat profile much different from that of affluent Western nations; high fibre; carbohydrate from fruits and vegetables (and some honey) but not from cereals, refined sugars and dairy products; high levels of micronutrients and probably of phytochemicals as well. Differences between contemporary and ancestral diets have many pathophysiological implications. This review addresses phytochemicals and cancer; calcium, physical exertion, bone mineral density and bone structural geometry; dietary protein, potassium, renal acid secretion and urinary calcium loss; and finally sarcopenia, adiposity, insulin receptors and insulin resistance. While not, yet, a basis for formal recommendations, awareness of Paleolithic nutritional patterns should generate novel, testable hypotheses grounded in evolutionary theory and it should dispel complacency regarding currently accepted nutritional tenets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Cyprus 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 200 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 39 19%
Researcher 33 16%
Student > Master 31 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 13%
Student > Postgraduate 13 6%
Other 43 20%
Unknown 23 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 49 23%
Social Sciences 13 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Other 44 21%
Unknown 25 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,405,974
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nutrition
#775
of 2,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,343
of 40,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nutrition
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 40,463 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.