Chern(gl)obyl Warming

    There has been an earth-rattling outcry about the presence of global warming, and what some would consider to be the inevitable demise of the human species, should we neglect our poisonous presence and make amends to heal the planet we have so greedily distressed. However, where some see the degradation of the planet, and the heartstrings-pulling drama of the extinction of certain species, I must say, I see the possibility of a rebirth of creatures long since left to the textbooks, and the imagination of children.

    What manner of creature am I referring to? Well, for starters let us take a brief look at Titanoboa. This undeniably massive snake arrived shortly after the extinction of the dinosaurs, during the Paleocene epoch, roughly 60 to 58 million years ago. To say that Titanoboa was large would be a gross understatement. This reptile extended to the astounding, and greatly unnerving lengths of 40 to 50 feet, and weighed around 2,500 lbs. That's 600 - 700 lbs. heavier than a 1966 Volkswagen Beetle.    

    It goes without saying that a reptile of this size could not even begin to wage a fair fight against the relatively cool temperatures of today. During Titanoboa's existence the average temperature would be around 90 °F, which would be considered a dangerous high by today's standards, and a testament to the reality of global warming.

    But is global warming a sign of the end of times, as so many scientists declare, alongside gathered bands of politicians, celebrities, and activist groups? Were it not for the extreme temperatures of yesteryear--with yesteryear being over 60 million years ago--we would not have the monstrous fossils belonging to such imagination-stirring creatures as Tyrannosaurus.

    However, when debating the consequences of global warming there is one thing to consider: What would the new world of tomorrow, under the constant radiating heat of our Sun, look like? Granted I could regale of scenes involving a charred cityscape, torched human remains, and a desert wasteland easily befitting a Mad Max backdrop. Has the planet ever looked like that before, and if so, how far back would we have to go to see what the global-warmed lands of tomorrow might look like? Well, like any good telling of events, the proper place to start is... the beginning.

    So when is the beginning? Enter the Hadean era, around 4600 - 4000 million years ago. This is the first geologic period, this is when Earth was in its infantile state. The name Hadean derives, expectedly, from the Greek word Hades, and for good reason. The planet surface was engulfed in volcanic ash, lava, unbearably hot temperatures, and lethal levels of  carbon dioxide, among other lung-unfriendly gases spread about the surface in a molten-hot miasma. It can be granted that as a specie, we could not, over several generations, create enough pollution to organize such a powerful and destructive alteration of the atmosphere as what the planet itself is capable of, so perhaps we should stop being such a prat about it?

    After the Hadean Period we shift levers on our time machine and move to, say, the Carboniferous Period. (Goodness we've passed by a HUGE amount of time, haven't we. Sorry Cambrian and Ordovician, and the many others bypassed; this isn't an episode of "This is Your Life!" for planet Earth, you know. I haven't that much time on my hands.
    Anyhow, during this period the mean surface temperature is around 57 degrees Fahrenheit. During this time the planet saw a plethora of rather over-sized insects. One example might be pulmonoscorpius, which, as the name might imply, was a prehistoric scorpion that grew to around 28 inches long. However, the most interesting thing about the Carboniferous period is when you compare it to its predecessor, the Devonian. What is so interesting about the Devonian is that, based on what we find in the rocks, there was likely not a considerable amount of glacier coverage. From what is seen in micro fossils and minerals of the time, the average temperature value was 86 degrees Fahrenheit, and, interestingly enough, a steep drop in CO2 levels.

    Strange. A low amount of carbon dioxide, but a relatively warm temperature? The Devonian period could also be referred to as the age of fish, as this is time when we see a vast array of micro and macro sized marine life. Marine life such as: bryozoa, hederelloids, microconchids, and corals. There's also a number of sharks, like Cladoselache and Eusthenopteron, to name only a very small few. Then, of course, there's the intimidating Dunkleosteus; a massive prehistoric fish measuring 33 feet long, weighing 4 tons, blessed with crushingly unfriendly jaws, and matched with what could only be considered a most unwelcoming smile of teeth.

 

    When we shift from the Devonian to the Carboniferous we see a drop in carbon dioxide levels (2,000 ppm to 800 ppm). What is also interesting to note is that the O2 levels have also changed dramatically, from 15% volume (75% of modern level) to 32.5% (163% of modern level). While much of the Carboniferous period was warm, it did start to cool towards the end, and with this cooling and drying of the climate, there is the eventual collapse of tropical rainforests.

    It isn't until we skip into the beginning of the Triassic period that we see just how unfriendly ole planet Earth can be on its tenants. In the transition from Permian to Triassic, the planet saw a jump in CO2 levels, as well as a jump in temperature; from 2 degrees Celsius, to 3 degrees Celsius higher than today. CO2 ppm changed from 900 to 1,750 (current ppm level is around 399, for reference). This was also the period were mass extinctions took place at both its beginning, and end. But, on a brighter note, this is also the period where we see the rise of the dinosaurs. So there's that.

    Now let's put the time travel machine into high gear and race forward. We zoom through the Jurassic period, the Age of Reptiles, when the supercontinent Pangaea begins to break apart into two colossal landmasses, Laurasia and Gondwana. Birds make their appearance and share the skies with other vertebrates like the pterosaurs. The oceans brim with the fantastic reptile sea-life of ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs. 

    We push the time machine lever forward even more and jettison into the Cretaceous period. The CO2 ppm has dropped from 1,950 to 1,700. However, the mean surface temperature has risen from 17 degrees Celsius to 18.

    The time machine rattles violently, but we drive on into the Paleogene period. The landmasses begin to take on an all too familiar shape, as we begin to see the Earth as it is today. The dinosaurs are gone, the ocean life has changed. CO2 ppm has dropped fantastically from 1,700 to 500, though the mean surface temperature has remained relatively constant at 18 degrees Celsius.

Jurassic Period

Paleogene Period

    The time machine crackles violently as we make it to the end of our journey, the Quarternary period, and the most recent of the three periods of the Cenozoic Era. The face of the planet is drastically different from anything we've seen before, with the most interesting addition to the world's ecology being humans. One of the many flashy meters on our time machine reads "CO2 ppm 399 with a mean surface temperature of 14 degrees Celsius." 

    It's quite clear from looking at a map comparison how far the planet has come in terms of ocean to land configuration. What's more, Earth's history has shown us that even though CO2 levels can be low, temperatures can still be on the rise, and that ole Earth can unflinchingly shrug from its shoulders a vast array of large and small animals without giving a second thought. 

Cambrian Period (541 - 485 million years ago)

Today

    There have been numerous mass extinctions, many of which occurred long before the tragedy that befell the dinosaurs, and many more that took place well after them. No specie lasts forever on this ever-changing planet, and neither will we, when our time comes. But all is not dark in the realm of global change, for if we look to those species that have survived to see numerous Eras come and go, we should smartly take note that the reason for their survival was evolutionary change, not planetary. If we wish to see what the future of Earth will look like, and the many new and strange species it will unfold, then we must learn not to change the evolution of the planet, a task which is daunting, and, for now, impossible, but to evolve ourselves. Otherwise, as history has shown, another surface walker will come to sit upon our throne, and likely reign with a similar false sense of superiority over a planet that only just recognizes their existence upon its ever-changing surface.

What kind of sit is this?

     Sitting. It's a simple physical act. In fact, I wouldn't even call it an act. It's more of a lack of action, though there are obvious physical activities, internally, that are occurring in our bodies. But still, it's hardly the same. I read a news article a few days ago, and in it it stated that Britons spend 14 hours, on the average, parked on their bottoms. Fourteen hours? How painfully unforgiving is that? Talk about a future streak of undeniable muscle ache, muscle atrophy, and a regrettable check list of other ailments and physical setbacks that may, or may not, leave you looking like the Humpback's estranged cousin from southern Aquitaine.

    Why do I mention this? Well, I have acquired a new job, and as delighted as I should be about it, I'm not. Granted with the economy in it's current dilapidated state, and the depressing truth that my country's currency is slowly becoming equal to that of laminated Monopoly money, I still can't bring myself to be joyful over my new found employment.

    Now, not to sound ungrateful, as I was out of work for over a year, and living on air, water, and the occasional serving of whole wheat noodles, but there are days when I almost begin to feel that I was healthier and happier BEFORE going back to work. If I was hungry, I ate; even if it was on the minimalist's scale. If I was thirsty, I poured myself a glass of water. If I was tired, I took a nap. If I wanted to stretch a leg, I went for a walk. Now there's something. A walk. Oh walks, how I miss you sometimes, if not all the time. My days were my own, and I set the bar for the intensity and stress that would follow.

    This is where my point drops in like a mercury anvil on an ant. When I was out of work I was incredibly active. I jogged, I walked, I did yoga, and even dabbled in qigong again. I was becoming a healthier me. And I loved it.

    And then I got a job...

    Again, don't get me wrong, I love the fact that I can go out and buy food. Real food. Good food. And that I don't have to worry about whether or not I'll be able to keep the lights on, are the heat going, or the water flowing. However, there seems to be a crucial trade-off that, at times, I question whether it's worth it. For example, and this is the big one, where I work I am not allowed breaks. Ever. I can go to lunch, yes, but those nice 10 or 15 minutes breaks, fitted somewhere in the first and last 4 hours of the 8 hour workday...well...they're not allowed. Why? Not even Buddha knows the answer to that. And this is the problem. I sit. All day. I sit in the car for my 40 minute drive to work. I sit, per the demand of the place where I work, for 8 hours. Then I get back in my car to sit for another 40 minutes.
    (Sheesh, my legs have gone numb just writing that.)
    Anyway, that's 9 hours and 20 minutes, a day, worth of sitting. That's not including the times I sit when I get home, though, I admit, those sitting sessions feel less like 'work sitting', and more like liberation sitting. It's almost like I'm sitting to rest from the all the sitting I did at work and in the car. How the hell does that make sense? But really, every work week I sit for at least 46 hours. That's almost two days for crying out loud!

    The human body works like a giant, organic pump system. Blood and, depending on physical activity, lactic acid, is pumped through the body constantly, and what does all the pumping? Muscles. If the muscles aren't doing anything, the blood isn't flowing like it should. This, in turn, causes muscle weakness, dizziness, atrophy, lethargy, and, in worst cases, thrombosis. Not to mention you aren't burning off the calories of the foods you're eating, usually at your desk because management frowns every time you leave your chair, even if it's to take a crap, or relieve your screaming bladder from all the coffee and/or pop you've been downing like a fish. (Though I personally don't drink either. My bladder screams from over consumption of ice water.)

    So what are we left with? A body that is brutalized with inactivity for over a third of the day. Honestly, why does the working world still cling to this dinosaur ideology of: "We must have them in chairs, in brick and mortar buildings! We must SEE them at their desk!"

    Why not have people work from home? The traffic on the roads would be cut in half. The pollution would be far less. People could get up and move around whenever they wanted, and, given the means to do so, could actually be doing an exercise routine WHILE doing their work on the computer. How insane is that? Making it so your job fits to your life, instead of shackling on the chains and rattling down the road of Employment Purgatory, shouldn't be scoffed at with idiotic comebacks that start with "That's a great idea, but...."

    But I suppose it's the trade-off in today's society. Either be poor and, having the knowledge to be as such, relatively healthy. Or work extensively and watch your body mutate into something awkward and, for some of us watching ourselves in the mirror, unfamiliar.

    Let's hear it for the employers' markets! Long live the unaware indentured slave.

The Last Vestiges of Weary Romance

"When the heart feels, but the mind disagrees, the romance will be fierce, and without reason and stability. When the mind senses chemistry but the heart feels nothing, the romance will be formal and without passion. True romance and love comes when both the mind and heart are in full agreement; though one must be mindful not to upset the balance between the two, for it is easy to risk falling into the aforementioned traps."

                                                                                    - Aristotle's Yo-yo

A Collect Call to Arms

     There has been, and in some respects, still is, a steadfast and emotionally fueled crusade to admonish people on the use and ownership of certain firearms in the United States. From politicians to actors, the march on certain calibers and configurations has touched nearly all professions, and from this tone-deaf chorus of raised voices comes a dull reminder of a modern citizen clenching to the present as though it might end, and forgetting, or ignoring, the echoing mistakes of the past.

    Is the firearm the old evil of a morally forward-moving society? Should the firearm be caged and buried deep where no one will ever remember it existed? What's more, could it be done? The simple answer to both questions is: No.
    The history of the weapon is a seemingly eternal one, be it a dagger, spear, sword, firearm, or pointed stick. Humans have used all manner of weaponry to defend and/or conquer others in times of war or civil strife. But is the modern firearm something to be ultimately feared? Is there something safer that could replace it? Does history provide us any insight to a time when things were better without firearms?
    Furthermore, are firearms capable of killing people en masse, as apposed to something less destructive, like, say, an old clunky sword? What empire of antiquity had a healthy assortment of weaponry used to devastating effect? Well, the Romans for a start. The Roman Empire was massive by ancient and even modern standards, and carried a worthy arsenal.

So what were the weapons of ancient Rome? Well...

GLADIUS:  The gladius (general Latin for 'sword') was the staple weapon of the Roman solider. It was a light sword, measuring, on the average, about 24 inches. Depending on your wealth as a Roman soldier, and your rank, you might carry a gladius made of better iron quality, perhaps something from Hispania, and the wooden handle might be made of something more elaborate, and decorative. A soldier cared for the condition of his sword before entering battle, as a chipped, dirty, rusty sword would likely leave you in dire straits before long. The Roman soldier's life depended on the state and shape of his weaponry, much like the soldiers today.

JAVELIN: In the early days of the Roman Republic's army you had velites, the men who rushed forward and did a bit of pointed stick throwing at the enemy. The javelin was considered the lighter, earlier version of the well known pilum.

PILUM: The pilum was the heavy version of the javelin, and capable of considerably unpleasant damage to an armored, or unarmored opponent. The pilum was the missile weapon most used by the later Roman legions; usually carried in pairs by a Roman legionary. The usual weight of a pilum was around 4.5 to 8.8 pounds. Unlike the bow, however, this was a short range missile weapon.

BOW: The Romans used the composite bow for medium range missile fire, with the bows usually being made of horn, wood, and sinew, and held together with hide glue. The arrows themselves were comprised of a wood shaft, and topped with iron heads of various shapes and sizes, depending on the target.

 

DARTS: The late infantrymen of the Roman army employed darts for what could be considered medium range missile fire. Called a plumbatae, the dart was lead-weighted, capable of reaching distances of 30 meters (98 feet), and early examples of its use start around 500 B.C.E. in ancient Greece. 

BALLISTA: The Roman ballista is a developed successor of the Greek ballista, with ammunition ranging from various sized balls of stone, or heavy darts. Its effective range was around 200-300 meters (656-984 feet) with a maximum range of around 600-700 meters (1,969-2,297 feet).

SCORPIO: Known also as the Scorpion, this was a smaller, sniper-like equivalent of the larger ballista design. This version could be manned by one soldier, and had a killing distance of 100 meters (328 feet). In parabolic shooting the range was around 400 meters (1,312 feet), and had a firing speed of 3 to 4 rounds per minute.


ONAGER: The onager was a type of catapult employed by the Roman army. This style catapult uses torsional force by means of twisting rope to store energy for the shot.

The onager's framework is made out of two beams from oak, which curve into humps. In the middle they have quite large holes in them, in which strong sinew ropes are stretched and twisted. A long arm is then inserted between the bundle of rope, at its end it has a pin and a pouch. It strikes on a huge buffer with a sack stuffed with fine chaff and secured by tight binding. When it comes to combat, a round stone (often clay balls with combustible substance in them, which explode on impact and burst into flames) is put in the pouch and the arm is winched down. Then, the master artilleryman strikes the pin with a hammer, and with a big blow, the stone is launched towards its target.   —Ammianus Marcellinus

    While these weapons are considered horribly obsolete by today's military standards, one must keep in mind that these weapons were state-of-the-art in their time, and just as capable of killing large numbers of people. At the Battle of Cannae over 45,500 Roman soldiers, and over 2,700 Roman horsemen were killed in combat at the end of the battle's one day duration. This does not include those combat casualties on the Carthaginian side, which would raise the casualties to over 56,000.
    This battle would have been fought with spears, swords, axes, clubs, bare hands (if disarmed or the infantryman's weapon broke), and short range missile weapons.

The Battle of Cannae resulted in more combat deaths than those of the following United States wars fought with modern style weaponry; such as artillery and firearms:

 United States Wars Fought - Duration - Total Combat Deaths 

• American Revolutionary War - 8 Years - 8,000
• War of 1812 - 3 Years - 2,260
•  Mexican-American War - 2 Years - 1,733
• Korean War - 3 Years - 33,686
• Vietnam War - 20 Years - 47,424
• Afghanistan - 2001-Present (12 Years) - 1,435
• Iraq War - 8 Years - 3,542

Battle of Cannae - 1 Day - 46,000 to 50,000 Romans

    In the argument in the United States about "gun control" there is no solution, as there is no regulating violence, no matter what form it is presented. Many proponents of gun control argue that a world without firearms would be a better one. If history has shown us anything from horrific battles like the one fought at Cannae between the Romans and Carthaginians, it is that there is no such thing as a world without violence, or a world without weapons capable of terrible devastation.

    The comparison of an ancient battle to those fought in more modern times is not to diminish the dangers of modern weaponry, but to show that even a world without the presence of firearms is no safer, or lessened in violence, than one with them. Simply removing one type of weaponry only drives wanting hands to obtain another.
    In London, England, where firearms are heavily restricted, the firearm finds itself replaced another weapon, be it edged, blunt, or merely with one's bare hands, as can be seen by the following numbers table.

   

Table of Number of Fatal Stabbings, Shootings and Other fatal wounding for Teenage Murder in London – 2005 to 31st Dec 2012

YEAR	Number of TEENAGE MURDERS	Stabbed	Shot	Beaten	Arson	Strangled	Other
2005	14	9	1	3	0	1	0
2006	18	11	5	2	0	0	0
2007	28	18	8	1	0	0	1
2008	29	23	3	2	0	0	1
2009	14	10	1	0	2	0	1
2010	19	10	7	1	0	1	0
2011	15	11	1	2	0	0	1
2012	8	6	0	1	0	1	0

    When it comes to people committing acts of violence against another, the argument of what weapon is used is irrelevant. It is the existence of intent and execution of action that make for moments of terror and loss of life. The weapon is only a tool; a means to an end. Those people who wish to see a country or world without firearms should look beyond such endeavors. It is not a world without weapons that they should strive for, nor is it a world without violence, as that is a dream farfetched and without probability. A more perfect world is one where people understand the purpose of any weapon, and carry it with respect and understanding.
    A world society knowledgeable and respectful of all weapons that have been, and will be, is more lasting, merciful, and endurable than one plagued with ignorance and spite. Until that day comes, those who would show respect must defend themselves from those who dwell blissfully in the outer stretches of untamed ignorance.

"The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts: therefore, guard accordingly, and take care that you entertain no notions unsuitable to virtue and reasonable nature."

                                                                                          - Marcus Aurelius

On the Authority of Morals

"A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true."

                                                                                                            - Socrates

Of Sun and Earth: The Greek Who Hazard A Theory

     If asked, a great many people might inform you that Galileo Galilei was the first man to bring about the determined theory that the solar system was heliocentric (Sun-centered solar system), and not, as the church deeply suggested, geocentric (Earth-centered solar system).     
    Galileo did play a significant role in the Scientific Revolution, and his contributions included improvements to the telescope, the confirmation of the phases of Venus, the observation and analysis of sunspots, and the discovery of the four largest satellites of Jupiter. However, Galileo's proposal of heliocentrism was not without its opponents, such as fellow astronomers who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of a stellar parallax, and, more seriously, the rebuffing of the Vatican. 
    But what is the stellar parallax--that vital missing component to solving the heliocentric conundrum? Well, imagine having six tennis balls placed at random positions on a table. Now move your head left and right across the plane of the table surface. Notice how the tennis balls appear to be moving? Of course it is not the tennis balls, but you, who is moving. 
    Stellar parallax--parallax being a displacement, or difference, in the apparent position of an object viewed along different lines of sight--is the effect of parallax on distant stars in astronomy. Seeing as astronomers, during Galileo's time, did not know of this, it was accepted that the stars and planets were moving around the Earth.
    But was Galileo the first astronomer to introduce this idea of heliocentrism? And what's more, were the arguments against such a theory always met with hesitation and fierce criticism? 

Aristarchus of Samos
(Ἀρίσταρχος, Aristarkhos, 310 BCE – ca. 230 BCE)

    In 310 B.C.E. a man named Aristarchus was born, and lived until sometime around 230 B.C.E. He was the first astronomer to place the Sun at the center of our solar system, over 1,700 years before Galileo was born, and Aristarchus maintained that not only did the Earth revolve around the Sun, but that it also rotated on its axis. 
    Aristarchus based his heliocentric model off of Philolaus's (470 – c. 385 BCE) idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Philolaus proposed that all things in the universe revolved around a hypothetical astronomical object he called the 'Central Fire'. 
    Aristarchus adopted this Central Fire idea, and identified it with the Sun. He then positioned the planets in their appropriate order of distance around the Sun. But like Galileo after him, Aristarchus was met with an age old rival, the geocentric theory of Aristotle and Ptolemy. 
    To counter this, Aristarchus proposed that because the stars were such a great distance from Earth, there was no observable parallax, and without a telescope capable of seeing just how far the stars were, the possibility of the introduction of the stellar parallax was highly improbable. Thus without the stellar parallax, Aristarchus's calculations were not exact; such as his claiming that the Sun was 18 to 20 times the distance away, instead of its actual 390 times the distance. However, in retrospect, his model is still sound, even if the spacial dimensions are incorrect.
    Unfortunately, Aristarchus's heliocentric solar system would be rivaled and pushed aside by the widely accepted geocentric theory. Although heliocentrism found a Hellenistic supporter in Seleucus of Seleucia, an astronomer who lived over a century after Aristarchus, it would take over 1,800 years later for astronomers like Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Isaac Newton to breath new life into the ancient heliocentric theory.
    Like Galileo and Copernicus, Aristarchus suffered harsh criticisms, and venomous accusations of his Sun-centered solar system. Greek philosophers like Cleanthes wrote in his 'Against Aristarchus' that Aristarchus should be indicted for impiety for "putting into motion the hearth of the universe." 
    Fortunately this sour look on heliocentrism was not shared by all. Archimedes mentions Aristarchus's theory in his work, 'Sand-Reckoner', and stated that if Aristarchus was indeed correct, it would make the universe massively larger than had been believed. Centuries later, Aristarchus would be an influence for 1600s Polish astronomer, Nicolaus Copernicus, who cited in his work "Six Books Concerning the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs" that Aristarchus was the ancient authority who espoused the motion of Earth. (However, this reference was excluded from the eventual published version.)

    The only surviving work of Aristarchus is "On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon." From this geometric work we get the following premises from Aristarchus, though the following degrees and distances are incorrect:

• (1) As observed during a lunar eclipse, the diameter of Earth’s shadow is twice the diameter of the Moon.
• (2) The Moon and Sun are each 2 degrees in angular diameter.
• (3) At the time of quarter Moon, the angular distance between the Moon and the Sun is 87 degrees.

*Aristarchus showed that the Sun is between 18 and 20 times farther away from Earth than the Moon is. (The actual ratio is about 390.)

*Aristarchus found the Moon’s diameter to be between 0.32 and 0.40 times the diameter of Earth and the Sun’s diameter to be between 6.3 and 7.2 times the diameter of Earth. (The diameters of the Moon and the Sun compared with that of Earth are actually 0.27 and 109, respectively.) 

*Aristarchus stated that the angle subtended by the Sun's diameter is 1/2 degree; a near accurate measurement. (The actual average value is 0.53 degrees.) 

*Aristarchus's 87° degrees is slightly off. The true angle is 89°. 

    

Of Loops and Fingers - The Beginnings of the Yo-yo

    For those not entirely convinced of Aristotle ever having had a yo-yo, let me illustrate, briefly, the history of the yo-yo. Early records date the yo-yo as far back as 500 B.C.E., with the disks being made of terracotta, although other materials would be wood, or metal--most likely bronze or iron. How's that for a finger workout? A little game of around-the-world might just clear a room of failed onlookers. 
    However, disks made of terracotta were used primarily for ceremony, as offerings to a specific god when the child came of age. What's more, the yo-yo is often considered the second oldest toy in history, though if you were to ask me, I think a stick is the first.

 A terracotta yo-yo made in ancient Greece.

    A good yo-yo friend of mine, who was long ago devoured by a horde of insatiable Papua New Guinea termites, belonged to Aristarchus of Samos while he was deciphering the complexities of a heliocentric solar system. For those of you who are unaware of Aristarchus, well, I suppose I'll have to discuss him later. In the meantime, do indulge in a good hour of yo-yo enjoyment. It works wonders for a bewildered or beleaguered mind.

Unto the Price of Liberty

"Democracy is only as perceptively righteous as the one who pays for it."

                                                                    - Aristotle's Yo-Yo

A Leaf For Your Thoughts?

    Sometimes it seems there are more health diets to choose from than there are black ants roaming Central Park. We have insane diets based solely on the consumption of grapefruits, or apples, or grapes. Then there are the diets where meats are high on the list, due to the hunt for proteins. I remember when the Atkins Diet exploded into mainstream. Everyone was fleeing from bread--those evil carbs!--and lumbering like zombies into the butcher store. Not that the butcher was complaining.
    But was it all necessary?
    Today we have a new diet that's out for everyone's delight. It's called "The Paleo Diet". Yes, apparently you can lose all those rolls and unwanted love levers (because by now they've widened beyond simple handles), and be the fit, healthy new you. Sort of.
    I'd never heard of the Paleo Diet until a few weeks ago, and by now, it's all over the place. Quite a number of people I know are now avid subscribers of this "breakthrough" diet that will have the floorboards to your happy home non-creaking in no time. (That was a fat joke...ha..haha.....*sigh*)
    The bottom line for this new diet, per the dieticians who suggest it, is: "You gotta eat natural, unprocessed foods!" Because remember, when it comes to losing weight and getting healthier, it's 20% exercise and 80% diet. How hard and how long you exercise isn't as essential as what you munch on in-between workouts. 
    So what does one eat on the Paleo Diet? 
    Well, before we can go into "what" one would eat under this diet, it would be a good idea to know "how" one would eat the foods available. First off, if we base our Paleo Diet on the eating and food preservation habits of humans about 40,000 years ago (we'll stick with Pleistocene, not Hominins) then we might as well steer clear of any and all groceries stores. You can't go to the farmer's market either. Why? 40,000 years ago there were no markets, unless you consider a field, forest, or jungle a market. Its preagricultural. Unless it grows wild, you aren't eating it. 
    "But Aristotle's yo-yo, what difference does it make whether or not you buy food at the store?"
    It makes a lot of difference.
    Anthropologists and paleontologists will likely nod in agreement when I say, "If you want meat, you better grab your spear and go find it." What this means is that unlike today, 40,000 years ago you had to walk for a meal. In fact, you had to walk a lot. And once you found your meaty dinner, you had to stab it, possibly a lot (and try not to get injured or eaten yourself). 
    Then you have to gut it, skin it, scrounge for wood, start a fire--which if you've tried, takes a considerable amount of time for the inexperienced (remember, no matches or lighters)--cook the meat, and then, finally, you can eat. So as far as your kitchen is concerned, you can't use it. It's not "Paleo." The refrigerator is out too, but you can use a deep, cool hole in the ground if you wish, or maybe some pottery, if your tribe knew how to make it; though this depends on the Paleolithic time period you subscribe to. 
    In regards to cooking the meat you catch, you have to take into consideration 'how' you cook it. Obviously if we're staying true to the Paleo Diet we cannot use gas cookers, electric coil stoves, convection ovens, or anything borne of the labors of a physicist. Instead, we use a good ole cooking fire!
    One thing you have to keep in mind is what kind of wood you will use to cook the meat. The main elements in wood include oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, potassium, and carbon. You won't get that from an electric or gas stove, or a convection oven. 
    And each varying specie of wood will offer a different mineral content and flavor to the meat you're eating. So it's not just one particular thing, it's a culmination of factors: walking to find the food, catching it, bringing it back, preparing it, starting the fire, the wood used, the time cooked (was it more raw, or thoroughly cooked?), and lastly, the kind of meat eaten. The paleo meat menu might include: wooly mammoths, wooly rhinoceros, cave lions, saber tooth cat, or glyptodons. But these are large and rather unfriendly beasts, so why not choose something a little easier for your knapped spearhead. 
    Why not deer? 
    They're always abundant, though a right ole pain in the arse to catch, especially when you don't have that long-range, scoped hunting rifle. Looks like you're walking again. Burn those calories Paleo Man!
    Another aspect to look at is what types of plants the deer ate, and how many species of plant that that deer might have eaten are now extinct. What was the protein count of a wooly mammoth? Did it have Omega-3 fatty acids, like so many diet fanatics crave? Did it taste like burger or chicken? Hmmm. 
    If we look at cattle today we can see variations in fat and protein content. The Scottish Highland kyloes (Scottish word for 'herds') offer a leaner meat than most other cattle breeds due to its shaggy coat. What does the coat do? It dramatically reduces the needed amount of subcutaneous fat to keep warm. Less fat means leaner meat. Also, the Scottish Highland cattle thrive on lesser amounts of vegetation due to its talent at scavenging, making it a boon to livestock owners who may not have the best grazing land.
    Was this the same for wooly mammoths? Who knows, we ran out of them millennia ago.
    And what was the probability that a Paleolithic human would take on a wooly mammoth, even if he/she was accompanied by ten other humans? Remember, there are no hospitals, no EMS, no airlift. If you get trampled, gutted, or clawed, well, you're not going to have to worry about it for long. With the inherent risk of injury, and the energy required to hunt large game, other sources of food would have been sought after. Things like berries and nuts would be more accessible, easy to store, quicker to replenish in numbers, and less likely to eat you. What's more, you could dig up a berry-producing plant, if you had the know-how, and then replant it near your cave. Now you don't have to walk as far. Yay! 
    Try that with a saber tooth cat. It might not work out as well as you intended. When looking at Paleolithic humans in Africa, there's little to no evidence to support that they hunted elephants or rhinoceros. This is likely due to the fact that elephants and rhinos are lethal when confronted, especially when the only weapon you have is a stone-headed spear. Even Gerard Butler, at his Spartan peak, would hand you back the spear, shake his Scottish head, and shout, "This-is-STUPID!"

    For those of you who are on the Paleo Diet, and eat meat, you have to think about what kind of meat you should eat. Because your Paleolithic diet should be based on a certain paleo human's environment. Is this a person in Asia Minor, North Africa, Europe, or South America? This matters because depending on where you choose, vastly affects what you choose to eat, and how you will prepare and store your food. 
    If you're a "Paleolithic Man/Woman!" who lives along the Euphrates, the types of plants and animals available to you would be different than, say, a Paleolithic human living in Equatorial Africa. Geography is key to figuring your Paleo Diet menu. So get it right!

    Now, a horde of people will cross their arms and accuse me of being extreme, but there's a good reason for it. Some prehistoric humans might have had daily moments of "not eating". Why? Because if you didn't hunt and catch it, you didn't eat. Granted there were fruits and nuts to pick, you still had to go searching for it, and depending on how many humans are in your group/tribe, there may not be enough to satisfy everyone. The most important factor to the success rate of how much you ate, and the quality of food, depended solely on your abilities. How fast can you run, and for how long? How strong are you? How good is your vision? How keen is your sense of smell and hearing? Can you track an animal over long distance without losing them? How sharp is your aim when throwing a harpoon or spear? Do you know which berries and plants are safe to eat? You don't want to poison or sicken yourself, there's no Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    Success relied heavily on your abilities, with death possibly being the result of your utter failure.

    However, before we get anymore carried away with the history of the "Paleolithic Human," let's look at the actual Paleo Diet. So what can't you eat?

• Grains
• Legumes
• Dairy Products
• Potatoes
• Refined Salt
• Refined Sugar
• Processed Oils (olive oil, canola oil, sesame oil, coconut oil, rice bran oil, etc.)

    Potatoes aren't Paleolithic? Peruvian sweet potato remnants date back as far as 8,000 B.C.E. Granted this is 2,000 years after the end of the Paleolithic Age, but that doesn't mean the potato wasn't known, and possibly gathered by South and Central American cultures. While the sweet potato does contain simple starches, it also contains complex carbohydrates, dietary fiber, beta-carotene, vitamin C, vitamin B6, manganese and potassium. 
    Furthermore, sweet potatoes can benefit diabetics as it helps stabilize blood sugar levels and lowers insulin resistance. 
    As for processed oils, I've already mentioned the benefits of olive oil in my talk about the Spartan Diet. So I won't reiterate the health benefits.



    What can you eat on the Paleo Diet?

• Fish (Which you don't have to catch)
• Grass-fed, pasture-raised meats (Which you don't have to hunt)
• Vegetables (Which you don't have to search for)
• Fruit (Which you don't have to search for)
• Fungi (Which you don't have to search for)
• Roots (Which you don't have to search for)
• Nuts (Which you don't have to search for)

    See a pattern here? The only active part of getting your food is that it's all sitting in the produce section for you to pick up. You don't have to forage. "That's not Paleolithic!" 
    Another factor to consider is that while we do know Stone Age people ate meat, we don't know exactly how much they ate. Was their diet mostly meat, or mostly plant-based? Was that determined by their habitat or migration patterns, or both?


    So what did Paleolithic humans eat?

• Meat (examples: seal, elands)
• Fish
• Shellfish
• Leafy Vegetables 
• Fruit
• Nuts
• Insects
• Wine (wine making was at its most primitive, but still present, depending on the era)
• Legumes (archaeobotanical discoveries made in Kebara Cave reveal as such)
• Wild cereal grain (dates back 23,000 years during the Upper Paleolithic Age)
• Dairy (example: reindeer milk)

    
    This is a small list just to give you a general idea. What's more, depending on what timeline in the Paleolithic Age you choose, you might have a tribe that practices rudimentary horticulture, animal husbandry, and pastoralism. Around 14,000 BP, certain European Upper Paleolithic cultures domesticated reindeer for use of meat or milk, or perhaps both. 
    Australian Aborigines have been consuming the same plants and animals, known as bushfoods, for 60,000 years. What were/are some things on the bushfood menu?

• Quandong
• Kutjera
• Muntries
• Riberry
• Beefsteak Fungus
• Laccocephalum Mylittae - Commonly known as 'Native Bread', which is a fungi.
• Emu
• Crocodile
• Goanna
• Witchetty Grubs

    
    As you can see, the foods found in the Bushman diet are different than those found in the European Paleolithic diet. This is why you need to know where your Paleo Diet is pulling its menu options from. And depending on when your Paleo Diet takes place affects the kind of tools you would use, as well as any chances of primitive horticulture, or animal domestication.
    One other factor to acknowledge about the Paleolithic diet, not the "Paleo Diet", is that it had lots of options. Paleolithic humans moved from one place to another in search of food--they were consumers, not producers (much like most people today)--so the introduction and consumption of various fruits, nuts, meats, fungi, and other plants allowed for a greater variety of nutrient intake, thus limiting famine and malnutrition. 

    Perhaps this last fact is one we should focus on the most. Why? Because we could go on and on about this long stretch of human history--the Paleolithic Age stretched from 2.6 million to 10,000 years ago--but it's not necessary. The lifestyle of humans in the Paleolithic Age is all we need look at, and what was the lifestyle? Lots and lots of exercise, and healthy food choices. That's it.
    The rigorous exercise the "paleos" performed were daily, outside in the elements, not three times a week in a gym or living room. In short: Paleolithic humans worked off the foods they ate, and what foods they did eat were natural. Not natural foods in the way food companies advertise, which incidentally, the FDA has no particular definition of what natural means, therefore food companies can label it however they wish. 
    Why do we go to the gym? To simulate the exercise we'd normally be doing without the presence of modern technology. Things like bicycles, cars, trains, and airplanes to name a few. We walked wherever we needed to be, whether the distance was a few yards or a few miles. 

    If you want to be a true Paleo Dieter then don't pick from a list of a few things suggested by a Paleo Dietician. Go to the grocery store and pick various items from the produce department. Remember, Paleolithic people ate a huge variety of things. 
    Get some legumes, lentils, apples, carrots, squash, tomatoes, sweet potatoes, mushrooms, etc. If you want bread, get some, but make sure it's not filled with preservatives and additives. In fact, you may even want to start making your own bread from scratch. That way you always know what's in your food.

    Eat right, exercise. That's Paleolithic. Nothing more.

Onto the Breads and Meats of Sparta!

    For some time now the legions of marching dieticians and health fanatics have been preaching and pushing "New and Better" diets upon the pudgy, flabby, obese, and/or glandular peoples of the world. There's no question that being healthy is indeed a good thing, but just how effective are some of these diets? Nowadays there seem to be four title-wearing champions who have right-hooked many people into believing that they are, in fact, worthy of their rank as top health diet. Most people who gaze upon these behemoths don't understand enough of the encompassing history, if it is based on historical people, like the Spartans, to know that, for the most part, it's all complete rubbish.
    So without wasting another sunrise, let us march out and meet...The Spartan Diet.    
    To be fair there is little that's clearly known about the true Spartan diet. Most of what we know comes from the artistry of the time, from pictures or diagram-like etchings made on pottery, or from literary works from such men as Aristophanes, Athenaeus, or Plutarch. However, with the information we do have on hand, especially in regards to the eating habits of ancient Greeks, the "Spartan Diet" may be seen as unflinchingly tilting the scales between modern habit, and true ancient practice. 
    Those who stand firm behind the Spartan Diet claim, with great admiration, that this diet is the healthiest of them all; it is the porridge that is "just right." And in good Spartan fashion, believers of the Spartan Diet attack and attempt to conquer any competing diet that dares stick its head out of the neighboring forests of 'Health' and 'Fitness'. So stand back, you Paleo-Persian Diet, you're no match for Sparta! 

    With regards to the real ancient Spartans, this "Spartan Diet" is nonsense. For example, if you wish to know the fundamentals of the advertised Spartan Diet, well, you have to pay for it. If you want to know the real workout habits of the Spartans, and get yourself in peak, ripped physical condition, per this advertised diet, you have to pay for it. 
    Really?
    The answer: No, you don't. 
    Why don't you? Because if archeologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, teachers, scholars, and modern philosophers don't have an exact account of the true exercise and food-eating habits of the Spartans, how would fitness trainers like Joe Schmoe of "SPARTA WORKOUT INC.!" know something that everyone else doesn't? 
    Simple. They don't.

Homer (800 B.C.E. - 701 B.C.E.)

    Of course many people will attack this statement, saying, "Oh yeah? How do you know?" The answer to that question is also simple. I don't. No one knows with absolute certainty what the realities of a Spartan diet was, but we are able to piece together a reasonable account based on the writings of Homer, Herodotus, and Thucydides. However, when you compare their writings to each other, sometimes the accounts can can have variations, making it difficult to ascertain which is correct. For example, Herodotus claimed, through his writings, that Therapne was the likely capitol of the Spartans. Homer, on the other hand, from his descriptions of the land and the, er, ladies, suggested that Sparta was the likelier Greek capitol for these fantastic manly men!
    Therein lies my point. You can't be completely certain of something in history, unless you have contemporary proof. Unfortunately, for the most part, we don't; except for pottery and poems, and those don't offer as much noteworthy information as say, a Spartan library. Another problem with epic poems, like Homer's "The Iliad", for example, is that sometimes poets have a habit of taking creative licenses with facts, making the job of separating fact from fiction a difficult one; especially when there is limited counter sources.
    To further my point, let us ask if the battle that took place in the Iliad really happened. Homer thought so. Remember, he did write an epic poem about it, telling us the dramatic events that took place between the Trojans and the Greeks. But there's a catch. He wasn't there. It happened before he was born; about 300-400 years, in fact. 
    

Herodotus (484 B.C.E. - 425 B.C.E.)

    Time changes all things, and with the passing of time the true accounts of what happened in a particular time in history can get muddied in the retelling. To further explain this, let's look at Herodotus, the "Father of History." It was from Herodotus that we get some of our insight into ancient Spartan life. However, Herodotus is not Spartan himself, nor is he Ionian, meaning he was not born in Greece or Peloponnese, but was born in the Greek settlement of Halicarnassus, Caria, which is modern day Bodrum, Turkey. What's more, he admitted that much of what he wrote was based on things he heard, not things he actually saw; not to mention little is known of the man himself, in as far as his personal history. Although Herodotus dismissed nonsensical rumors and easily disprovable lies, it was still difficult to make absolutely certain the information he wrote was based on pure facts, and was never contaminated with the urge to add creative decoration. If anything, those people who prefer solid facts may see Herodotus as little more than a fantastic storyteller, and not a historian scribing factual events.

    What does this have to do with the Spartan diet? Well...
    In regards to food, the varied diets of the Greek peoples in 450 B.C.E., might be different than the diets of 800 B.C.E. For example, Hesiod tells of a good feast including goat's milk and meat from a well-fed heifer. However, meat is shown to be less prominent in writings from 5th Century B.C.E. onward, though this may be a genre thing. If so, it shows us that as cultures change over time, their writings may reflect a different view on history, thus making accurate accounts rather difficult.
    In closing this point, it is unlikely that any fitness trainer who approaches you knows, with all certainty, what the true diet of ancient Spartans was. These trainers are doing what everyone who studies ancient Greece does, and, in some ways, even what the people of ancient times did, like Herodotus, they base their studies on second-hand knowledge and do their best to get it right.

    But Aristotle's Yo-Yo, in-between your time practicing 'walking the dog' and 'the cat's cradle,' how do we know you're not completely wrong? What if the "Spartan Diet" is the best diet, and is historically accurate? What then? 
    Whether anyone wishes to listen to a Greek philosopher's yo-yo is entirely up to them, but if you really want to live like a Spartan, and become fit and fantastic, then you don't need to pay money for it. You don't need a personal fitness trainer. You don't even need to wear to a tight-fitting leather thong with matching red cape; neither of which a Spartan hoplite wore in battle, thank goodness. If they had, the Persians would never have let them live it down, nor would the Athenians, for that matter. 
    No, what you need to do is research. However, if you're not very good at it, or don't have the time, let me give you some of the basics to get you on your way. First of all, I'm not going to carry on breathlessly about the 'Spartan Warrior Code.' I think we all know by now what the military mindset was, or might have been. We do not need spend our time focusing on it. Why? Because we aren't Spartans. Well, those of you who aren't native-born to the actual region in Greece, that is. But even if you are, you aren't the Spartans of antiquity, you're Spartans of today; and as such, I hope you aren't all running about in tight leather thongs and flowing red capes. 
    And I won't carry on about the exercise regiments of a Spartan hoplite either. Why? Because when it comes down to it, diet is 80% of it, and exercising 20%. Don't agree? Then go ahead and train like a Spartan on a lavish diet of lard-based cornbread and Twinkies. All the push-ups of Lacedaemon won't save you. So please, put aside your Laconophilia, and just listen for a moment longer.

    With what we do know, let's take a look at the diet of ancient Greece. First of all, meat seems to be a major component of the "Spartan Diet." This is true. The Spartans did eat meat, but what kind of meat was it? Well, if you've been eating beef then you're not quite living up to true history. A closer meat would be pork. Why? Without getting too deep into the agricultural reasons, Greece isn't exactly a hot spot for vast, fertile grazing land. So cattle, while present in ancient Greece, wasn't a staple part of most peoples' diet. Instead, smaller livestock would have been preferred. Animals such as pigs, sheep, goats, quails, chickens, geese, and hens. These animals are relatively low maintenance, easy to cage/pen and require little food in comparison to larger herds of cattle.
    So if you want to eat like a Spartan of the Hellenistic Era, you should sit down and enjoy a fine bowl of 'black gruel.' Oh, you'll love it! The main ingredients are: pork, salt, vinegar, and blood. Yum! This black stew was commonplace in Sparta, and likely eaten every day. It was also preferred by many of the older Spartans, leaving the flesh for the younger ones.
    Of course, not too many people today are going to be agreeable with this kind of dish. I'd be surprised if most people on the Spartan Diet even dare to try it once. Why? Because it's revolting. It's revolting today, and, if you asked them, it was revolting to people back then. The king of Pontus, according to Plutarch, found the flavor of black gruel to be "extremely bad." 
    Oh well. So much for Spartan cuisine.
    But what else is there on the ancient Greek menu?
    Well, during the time of the Spartan hoplite, agriculture was the mainstay of the economy, and made up a sizable portion of the ancient Greek diet. Now, I could go into massive detail about agriculture in ancient Sparta, but let's stay focused on the diet itself. Granted everything plays a role, and there are indirect effects, but for the sake of brevity let's keep things micro.
    So what would be genuine things to eat? The main part of the diet can be cereals--made of barley or wheat--eggs, cheese, water, wine, fruits, vegetables, honey, fish, poultry, pork, olive oil, milk--though not usually consumed--cottage cheese, yogurt, bread--wheat or barley--and...that's about it. Not much of a menu, but there you have it. Granted there could be more items to add, but these are the staples of an ancient Greek diet.
    The main thing to consider is not only what was eaten, but how much. A usual daily diet involved three to four meals. Breakfast, lunch, dinner, and, maybe, an small evening meal. Breakfast might be comprised solely of bread and wine, where the bread would be dipped in wine to soften it, and add flavor. Lunch would involve any number of things, like a pork stew, or lentil soup; soups were commonplace, and could be made with a mixture of just about anything. Dinner was the largest meal, and usually taken before or at dusk. 

    Now, "fruits and vegetables" is rather generic, so let's be more precise, for those planning to head to the grocery store with their new Spartan shopping list. Vegetables would be: cabbage, onions, lentils, sweet peas, chickpeas, broad beans, artichokes, garden peas, and grass peas. Any of these can be mixed in any variation to make a soup, or simply mashed. Olives are also a possible appetizer for those on the go.
    Fruits would likely be figs, raisins, or pomegranates. Nuts were also on the menu. However, fruits and nuts were usually eaten as a kind of dessert, not as a constant snack like people might do today. Again, consumption amount is the key factor here.
    As for land meats and seafood, the list would include: pork, poultry, squid, octopus, shellfish, carp, pike-fish, swordfish, tuna, sardines, anchovies, eel, lamb meat, beef--though not common--and mullet. 
    As for the beverage menu, you're options can include wine, yes, but the number one consumed beverage was.....water. If a true Spartan had to pick, he would, with any good military sense, take a pitcher of water over a pitcher of wine any day. Milk might be another option, though it was not commonplace, and some felt the consumption of milk was barbaric.

    So there you have it, the ancient Greek diet in a very compact nutshell. If you take nothing else from the diet of antiquity, take the knowledge that what was eaten was not as important as how much. Remember, people lived off of what they grew, or raised--if referring to livestock. You couldn't overeat what the fields could not provide. If you ate all your bread in a weeks' time, you had to wait for the next harvest, or head to the market and buy it, which could be quite costly if you're poorer rural folk. In the meantime your menu of food options was smaller, thus you ate a little less. To remedy this, individual meals could be kept small so as to maintain the longevity of provisions, sort of like what we do today to stretch our money when food costs go up. What's more, an option like fish was rather expensive in ancient Greece, much like today, so if you couldn't afford fish or other meats, your entire diet would likely revolve around fruits, vegetables, and bread.
    Also, keep in mind that if one wished to travel to town, he or she was walking. People walked everywhere. Match that kind of simple exercise with a diet lean in proteins, fatty acids, carbohydrates, and proper hydration with a healthy-minded consumption of water, and you have a fantastic diet. 
    And this is the point. 
    You don't need to carry burdensome dead weight over your shoulders and run laps, or drag massive truck tires behind you for thirty odd feet, or do 100 sit-ups in fierce repetition, or know 103 different ways to stab a person with a pointy piece of bronze. 
    You just need to eat in proportion to what you're doing. Do less, eat less. Do more, eat more; within reason, of course. 
    For fun, let's take a look at the Spartans march on Athens during the Peloponnesian War. The distance from Sparta to Athens is 95.09 miles. Let's say the Spartans marched at an average speed of 3 miles per hour--they weren't in that big a hurry. So, 95.09 miles, at 3 miles per hour, means it would take approximately 31.7 hours to reach Athens. Now we have to take into consideration the arms and armor the Spartans would be carrying, which would come to, roughly, 95 pounds; once you include the helmet, shield, sword, spear, greaves, sandals, miscellaneous equipment, and tunic. Add that 95 pounds to the possible average body weight of the Spartan, let's say around 160 lbs., and you come to an approximate total weight of  255 lbs.
    How many calories burned is that? 
    About 16,156 calories; if you walked it non-stop, on flat terrain, without breaks; something the Spartan hoplites would most certainly not do, but it gives you an idea. Obviously there are other factors to consider, such as hills, mountains, weather (temperature changes), etc.
    If you're curious how many calories ancient Greeks may have burned based on walking habits, here's a website that can help you calculate that. Create a genuine ancient Greek meal based on the food options I've mentioned, figure the calories, plot a trip, and see how many calories your Greek burned in a day. Have fun with it!
    http://www.healthstatus.com/cgi-bin/calc/calculator.cgi

   
    The Spartan Diet is steadfast in its desire to be low-carb. This means bread and sugar are evil, and thou shalt not touch them, lest ye explode into clumpy bits! Well, not to burst too many Spartan Diet bubbles, but bread was a staple part of ancient Greek diets, and it was breads and cereals that kept the ancient Greek Empire moving.
    As for sugar, figs have a high amount of it, and low-carb enthusiasts reject them because of this. Ironically, the leaves of the fig plant may have properties that help regulate blood sugar in diabetics. But remember, figs were not consumed in mass quantity in antiquity, but treated as either a small snack, or a dessert. Raisins are another culprit of high sugar count, and may also be discarded by low-carb gurus. However, recent studies suggest that people with mild increases in blood pressure can consume small servings of raisins to possibly help lower their blood pressure by a significant amount. 

    According to the Spartan Diet, you should avoid any processed oils. How does this stack against history? Well...
    Olive oil was a huge part of the ancient Greek diet. It has a high amount of monounsaturated fats, which epidemiological studies suggest reduces the risk of coronary heart disease. Furthermore, olive oil has a wide variety of antioxidants not found in other oils, with Hydroxytyrosol thought to be the main antioxidant compound. Olive oil also lowers cholesterol and LDL (low-density lipoproteins; 'bad' cholesterol), and is also known to lower blood sugar levels, and blood pressure. This, in turn, helps counteract the high sugar levels found in raisins, figs, and the dreaded monster, wheat--which can cause high blood sugar. From a macro perspective, the ancient Greek diet is a wonderfully well-balanced one.
    Another factor to remember is that Spartans used vinegar in their main course, which was black stew; made of salt, pork, vinegar, and blood. What are the benefits of all that vinegar? Small amounts of vinegar have been shown to reduce the glycemic index of carbohydrate foods, like wheat and barley. 
    Vinegar also satiates the "fullness" need, thus making the person, in this case a Spartan hoplite, feel fuller, faster, thus reducing the amount of consumed calories. Unlike high fructose corn syrup of today, which is a processed sugar that can induce leptin resistance, and defeat this "fullness" trigger, causing a person to eat more, and thus, take in more unneeded calories. Furthermore, with the Spartans' daily consumption of vinegar, it might even have been helpful in preventing metabolic syndrome. 
    Of course many people may denounce most, if not all, of the things I've stated, arguing instead that these foods "might" or "possibly could" do something healthy, which is not the same is "will" or "does."  
    I suppose this is true, but strangely enough the Spartans, whom the "Spartan Diet" is so deeply attributed to, ate these very things. In many respects, the Spartan Diet is rather a contradiction to the actualities of history. But if you wish to go along with it, if you wish to discard the likelihoods that are apparent in history, then no one is stopping you. Least of all the Persians. 
    So continue dismissing anything with carbohydrates, continue your consumption of a near meat-only diet, like Olympic champion, Milos of Croton; even though he also ate large amounts of bread. Go on eating like a famished rabbit. It's okay. You want to be as healthy as a Spartan, and eat the very things they ate! But keep in mind, it wasn't quite as popular as you might expect, given the prestigious decorations of modern thinking. 
    Spartan food was terrible. Just ask the people of Sybaris, an ancient Greek town in southern Italy, they'll tell you.

    "Naturally Spartans are the bravest men in the world. Anyone in his senses would rather die ten thousand times than take his share of such a sorry diet."

                                                                                                              - A Sensible Sybarite