|
On April 20 2012 21:32 eshlow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 20:33 Pulimuli wrote:
Do you guys drink coffee btw? or just water? Coffee, tea, or water. Milk is not paleo, but if you're not allergic to it then it's probably ok
By what justification is Coffee paleo. Supplements aren't paleo either, and neither is protein powder, and neither is salt. The list goes on, and this whole movement appears to depend upon pseudo-science that ignores clinical data.
But if you're doing a low carb diet no wonder you need coffee in the morning to wake up 
|
On April 21 2012 07:55 Piy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 21:32 eshlow wrote:On April 20 2012 20:33 Pulimuli wrote:
Do you guys drink coffee btw? or just water? Coffee, tea, or water. Milk is not paleo, but if you're not allergic to it then it's probably ok By what justification is Coffee paleo. Supplements aren't paleo either, and neither is protein powder, and neither is salt. The list goes on, and this whole movement appears to depend upon pseudo-science that ignores clinical data. But if you're doing a low carb diet no wonder you need coffee in the morning to wake up
By what justification is it not paleo? Combine beans and hot water -> drink. People have been doing this since forever.
Paleo isn't low carb.
|
On April 21 2012 07:55 Piy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 21:32 eshlow wrote:On April 20 2012 20:33 Pulimuli wrote:
Do you guys drink coffee btw? or just water? Coffee, tea, or water. Milk is not paleo, but if you're not allergic to it then it's probably ok By what justification is Coffee paleo. Supplements aren't paleo either, and neither is protein powder, and neither is salt. The list goes on, and this whole movement appears to depend upon pseudo-science that ignores clinical data. But if you're doing a low carb diet no wonder you need coffee in the morning to wake up
Sigh. Another troll to ignore.
|
|
|
you guys drink alcohol? and if so, what kind? wine (since its the most natural and not made from any grains?)
|
On May 03 2012 07:16 Pulimuli wrote:
you guys drink alcohol? and if so, what kind? wine (since its the most natural and not made from any grains?)
Many of us just eat really healthy every day so we can get away with getting drunk as fuck without any big impact on weekends. I drink wine when I'm with gf (small quantity) and hard liquors when I want to get drunk (whisky, pisco, tequila). I try to avoid beer (fuck carbs) and if I have to add coke I always use diet/light version (fuck sugar)
This is a nice article:
http://www.leangains.com/2010/07/truth-about-alcohol-fat-loss-and-muscle.html
|
On May 03 2012 12:26 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 07:16 Pulimuli wrote:
you guys drink alcohol? and if so, what kind? wine (since its the most natural and not made from any grains?) Many of us just eat really healthy every day so we can get away with getting drunk as fuck without any big impact on weekends. I drink wine when I'm with gf (small quantity) and hard liquors when I want to get drunk (whisky, pisco, tequila). I try to avoid beer (fuck carbs) and if I have to add coke I always use diet/light version (fuck sugar) This is a nice article: http://www.leangains.com/2010/07/truth-about-alcohol-fat-loss-and-muscle.html
you drink like me then, i love beer but i rarely drink it nowadays because it does make me feel alot worse the day after than wine or whiskey does
|
|
|
Makes no sense to make a diet based on cutting out perfectly fine foods, legumes and grains, because of the belief they are severely unhealthy. Why would those be so much more unhealthy than nuts? I mean peanuts aren't nut but legumes so you can't eat them but cashew are fine?
It seems to be largely based on a misunderstanding of evolution and making all kinds of assumptions based on what we used to eat in the paleolithic.
It seems silly to me to suggest that diseases of civilizations are caused by legumes and grains while red meat is ok. Especially considering the evidence that is out there. Also, the whole concept wasn't born out of empiricall evidence anyway but bad evolutionary assumptions.
I am not saying this is a bad diet. It the rationale just doesn't make any sense. This seems just another fashion trend in diets to me. Everyone already knows what is and what isn't healthy. I never understood the appeal of in-vogue diets.
|
On May 12 2012 02:19 Miyoshino wrote:
Makes no sense to make a diet based on cutting out perfectly fine foods, legumes and grains, because of the belief they are severely unhealthy. Why would those be so much more unhealthy than nuts? I mean peanuts aren't nut but legumes so you can't eat them but cashew are fine?
It seems to be largely based on a misunderstanding of evolution and making all kinds of assumptions based on what we used to eat in the paleolithic.
It seems silly to me to suggest that diseases of civilizations are caused by legumes and grains while red meat is ok. Especially considering the evidence that is out there. Also, the whole concept wasn't born out of empiricall evidence anyway but bad evolutionary assumptions.
I am not saying this is a bad diet. It the rationale just doesn't make any sense. This seems just another fashion trend in diets to me. Everyone already knows what is and what isn't healthy. I never understood the appeal of in-vogue diets.
What's the rationale that legumes and grains are "perfectly fine foods"? That we've been eating them for millenia? That nearly all people on the planet consume them? That sounds like equally bad rationale. From the standpoint of empirical evidence, vegetable proteins like gluten and high PUFA seed oils have shown to contribute to considerable amounts of inflammation which then manifests itself as disease.
Although much has been made of "caveman diets" from an evolutionary perspective, when you look at the actual science behind it there are extremely detrimental effects to consuming grains, vegetable and seed oils (and to a somewhat lesser extent, legumes) from a physiological perspective. See the sticky in this thread or the host of studies eshlow just referenced for just the tip of the iceberg on the science behind it. We're learning more about diet and nutrition all the time.
"Paleo" itself also has many incarnations so it's fairly difficult to classify specifically anyway.
Edit: Also, complete and utter facepalm at "everyone already knows what is and what isn't healthy"--the same way people "knew" beef liver and butter were healthy in the 1930's until Ancel Keys told us they weren't? The science of health and nutrition has evolved a ridiculous amount in the last decade, even the last YEAR, and you have the gall to make a statement like that? Patently ridiculous.
|
On May 12 2012 02:19 Miyoshino wrote:
Makes no sense to make a diet based on cutting out perfectly fine foods, legumes and grains, because of the belief they are severely unhealthy. Why would those be so much more unhealthy than nuts? I mean peanuts aren't nut but legumes so you can't eat them but cashew are fine?
It seems to be largely based on a misunderstanding of evolution and making all kinds of assumptions based on what we used to eat in the paleolithic.
It seems silly to me to suggest that diseases of civilizations are caused by legumes and grains while red meat is ok. Especially considering the evidence that is out there. Also, the whole concept wasn't born out of empiricall evidence anyway but bad evolutionary assumptions.
I am not saying this is a bad diet. It the rationale just doesn't make any sense. This seems just another fashion trend in diets to me. Everyone already knows what is and what isn't healthy. I never understood the appeal of in-vogue diets.
how can you post something like that when the person before you literally JUST posted tons of links to scientific research on the subject?
just because something "seems silly" to you doesnt mean its wrong now does it? or are you a genius who knows everything about everything?
edit: what ingenol said...
|
In the paleolithic the average life expentancy was 20 to 33 years old. How can that even mean that people evolved to not get Alzheimer with the diet they were eating? You can only come up with a paleolithic diet if you have heard about this thing called the theory of evolution but have no real idea that it is.
We evolved to crave calorie dense foods because that is what made people survive. People ate what was available which included legumes and grains while craving those that were most calorie dense. If you can walk 4 miles to eat some cabbage leaves and 6 to eat a bush of nuts, it is pretty clear which way evolution needs to program humans to go.
It wouldn't have mattered at all if these foods gave you disease of civilization at a later age because evolution never had an effect on this. That's why we get them. We have little defense against them. People susceptible to heart disease past the age of 50 don't do worse in passing on their genes.
In fact, the foods evolution wants us to eat are the worst out of all foods. Basing a diet based on: "If it tasted good, spit it out." is going to be superior to a paleo diet.
Then the idea that those foods speficially from the paleolithic are better than anything else is silly as well. Is wearing hides and living in caves also better than what we do right now? This is the double fallacious basis on which this diet is based. How is this any better than saying we all get cancer because we have artificial light? Why not all have campfires in our houses so we don't get cancer?
The last 10,000 years we ate a lot of grains and legumes. We also evolved through that stage. What is so special about the paleolithic?
Also, the food that were the right foods to adept to in the human niche aren't going to be the ones that are most healthy. I doubt we ate a lot of seaweed in our cavemen years. Same for mushrooms and I am sure there are more examples. Imagine if insects weren't worth catching period because they are small. Then imagine we today can factory farm them. Does that make them magically unhealthy?
There's just so many holes in the assumptions made.
I can see it already. An island with trees that grow only fruits and cabbage and an island with trees that grow steak and cashew nuts. Guess on which island humans will breed faster.
And yes, by now people know what is healthy and what is not. You people are going to defend the fad you bought in to, that's fine. And it probably makes you eat healtier right now because now you pay close attention to what you are eating. But it is all based on nonsense like all those other diets like Atkins. Atkins diet also has studies that show it has positive results. Neither are supported by the mainstream consensus.
[edit]
Just checked the wiki page. Of course it says exactly what I say about the evolutionary assumptions behind it and it links to papers written on it, pointing out the obvious flaws.
|
On May 12 2012 02:19 Miyoshino wrote:
Makes no sense to make a diet based on cutting out perfectly fine foods, legumes and grains, because of the belief they are severely unhealthy. Why would those be so much more unhealthy than nuts? I mean peanuts aren't nut but legumes so you can't eat them but cashew are fine?
It seems to be largely based on a misunderstanding of evolution and making all kinds of assumptions based on what we used to eat in the paleolithic.
It seems silly to me to suggest that diseases of civilizations are caused by legumes and grains while red meat is ok. Especially considering the evidence that is out there. Also, the whole concept wasn't born out of empiricall evidence anyway but bad evolutionary assumptions.
I am not saying this is a bad diet. It the rationale just doesn't make any sense. This seems just another fashion trend in diets to me. Everyone already knows what is and what isn't healthy. I never understood the appeal of in-vogue diets.
For all the hate you are getting in here, let me tell you that I agree with you, mostly for the bolded parts. I am not talking about a scientific perspective here, I have neither the time nor the will to get my way through all those linked studies in favor and against paleo. I have done my fair share of that, and afterwards it is the same old story that everything which opposes your view will be disregarded and everything that supports your claims is better science. In our debate here it surely doesn't help that all those vegetarians and vegans come in here and show us mostly, by any standards, completely ridiculous claims and studies, it just makes them look so foolish and very easy for eshlow to ridicule them. But then again they probably deserve it, the debate is just very one-sided that way.
No, I am just coming from a completely practical point of view, in which the phrase Paleo-Diet has (for me) by now lost all meaning to it. If something is healthy and not made by humans, we just turn it into paleo, and if it is not, then you shouldn't eat it. It gets even more ridiculous when you go to paleo websites and they tell you that they drink red wine to their steaks (hello Dr. Harris) and that this is ok. And then there is of course all those useful caveman supplements in form of pills (but to be fair, people try to make a business out of everything, good or bad).
The need for people to give their diet a name is something that completely baffles me. If you wanna eat eggs and drink milk, don't call it paleo because it doesn't fit the bill. Just eat it because it is healthy, but don't bend the concept to fit it into your lifestyle.
There is such a huge discrepancy between what paleo is meant to be in a scientific way and how it is used by its followers, to me Paleo has just become a cult. It is so much easier for me to say "I eat healthy unprocessed foods, and I don't eat grains, because studies have shown that they are bad for humans" instead of trying to induce meaning into a word.
|
On May 12 2012 02:56 Miyoshino wrote:
In the paleolithic the average life expentancy was 20 to 33 years old. How can that even mean that people evolved to not get Alzheimer with the diet they were eating? You can only come up with a paleolithic diet if you have heard about this thing called the theory of evolution but have no real idea that it is.
We evolved to crave calorie dense foods because that is what made people survive. People ate what was available which included legumes and grains while craving those that were most calorie dense. If you can walk 4 miles to eat some cabbage leaves and 6 to eat a bush of nuts, it is pretty clear which way evolution needs to program humans to go.
It wouldn't have mattered at all if these foods gave you disease of civilization at a later age because evolution never had an effect on this. That's why we get them. We have little defense against them. People susceptible to heart disease past the age of 50 don't do worse in passing on their genes.
In fact, the foods evolution wants us to eat are the worst out of all foods. Basing a diet based on: "If it tasted good, spit it out." is going to be superior to a paleo diet.
Then the idea that those foods speficially from the paleolithic are better than anything else is silly as well. Is wearing hides and living in caves also better than what we do right now? This is the double fallacious basis on which this diet is based. How is this any better than saying we all get cancer because we have artificial light? Why not all have campfires in our houses so we don't get cancer?
The last 10,000 years we ate a lot of grains and legumes. We also evolved through that stage. What is so special about the paleolithic?
Also, the food that were the right foods to adept to in the human niche aren't going to be the ones that are most healthy. I doubt we ate a lot of seaweed in our cavemen years. Same for mushrooms and I am sure there are more examples. Imagine if insects weren't worth catching period because they are small. Then imagine we today can factory farm them. Does that make them magically unhealthy?
There's just so many holes in the assumptions made.
I can see it already. An island with trees that grow only fruits and cabbage and an island with trees that grow steak and cashew nuts. Guess on which island humans will breed faster.
And yes, by now people know what is healthy and what is not. You people are going to defend the fad you bought in to, that's fine. And it probably makes you eat healtier right now because now you pay close attention to what you are eating. But it is all based on nonsense like all those other diets like Atkins. Atkins diet also has studies that show it has positive results. Neither are supported by the mainstream consensus.
[edit]
Just checked the wiki page. Of course it says exactly what I say about the evolutionary assumptions behind it and it links to papers written on it, pointing out the obvious flaws.
I mean, it's cool and all to be skeptical and think things over critically but have you spent any time reading research or just come up with situations in your mind about islands and the rate of reproduction there? Like I'm more than open to listen to opposing research and studies but you've offered nothing but argumentum ad populum which is fine for most of life's decisions but this thread is kinda dedicated to the science and benefits of a Paleo diet in detail.
|
to be fair, the wiki page does point out some flaws which seem to be justified. however, the science behind paleo (i.e. that grains/gluten/seed oils are bad for you) seems to become more and more accepted in scientific circles which is why i'm gonna stay away from grains and processed foods anyway...
|
The nail in the coffin is the fact that humans did eat legumes and grains in the paleolithic.
This thread doesn't just offer a certain diet. But it also claims a ton of diseases are caused directly by eating them grains and legumes. When one reads that, it is hard to ignore it.
Argumentum ad populum? You have no basic scientific versing? Hunter gatherers roam arond in a large area of land because they need a certain area to find all their foods. Compare it to great apes today.
The more high calorie foods in a certain area, the better they do. If you put a vending machine stacked with stuff with tons of HFCS in the cave of some cavemen, they will thive. They will outbreed the neighboring tribe and then kill off their neighboring tribe. That's why to us sugar is sweet and not bitter.
Those with genes that made cabbage leaves taste sweet died out a long time ago. And that happened long before humans evolved.
Anyway, what is the difference between nuts and seeds anyway in this diet? Quite a few nuts are actually seeds. Also, if grains are bad because they are higher in calories, why are nuts that are even higher in calories better?
Starch from tubers and seeds is the fundamental component of the human diet in the paleolithic. But the paleolithic diet says to cut out these exact foods. Yeah, they are why many people are fat in present day. Yes, it is very hard for a hunter gatherer to get fat by gathering starchy foods all day. But that's irrelevant. It would also be very hard for a hunter to get fat from all the meat he killed. So why can we eat meat but not starchy good in this diet?
Seafood was not available on the savannah of Africa. How is it paleolithic? Because it is healthy?
In the end humans were 'designed' to eat everything we digest.
Sure, there was in the US a low fat craze and other things were overlooked. But this whole diet isn't even internally consistent. Just eat what is healthy. If you believe there is enough research out there to suggest red meat is bad, fine don't eat it. If you believe it is legumes and grains are the cause of all problems in this world, fine. But this paleolithic stuff reminds me of creationists who believe people became 900 years old in the first days of the world because back then everything was 'pure'.
Diet plants are really like religion. In being very specific on what to do and what not to do in a very specific way, they give the suggestion of authority.
You can look up the nutrients of legumes and grains and that will tell you how healthy or unhealty it is.
|
On May 12 2012 02:56 Miyoshino wrote:
In the paleolithic the average life expentancy was 20 to 33 years old. How can that even mean that people evolved to not get Alzheimer with the diet they were eating? You can only come up with a paleolithic diet if you have heard about this thing called the theory of evolution but have no real idea that it is.
From one of the above links:
Another common counterargument is the short average
life expectancy at birth of hunter–gatherers. The problem with
this marker is that it is influenced by fatal events (eg, accidents,
warfare, infections, exposure to the elements) and
childhood mortality. Today, average life expectancy is higher
not because of a healthier diet and lifestyle but owing to better
sanitation, vaccination, antibiotics, quarantine policies,
medical care, political and social stability, and less physical
trauma.
66 Moreover, Gurven and Kaplan,149 in a recent assessment
of the mortality profiles of extant hunter–gatherers for
which sufficient high-quality demographic data exist, concluded
that “modal adult life span is 68–78 years, and that it
was not uncommon for individuals to reach these ages”.
I don't even eat "Paleo". I had three bowls of spaghetti last night. I just try to stick to the least processed foods possible as often as possible. I can understand being against the "fad" of what Paleo means. I'm with you on that. But there's a lot of stuff out there in regards to gluten not being good for you. I view Paleo as more of a theory that determines a guideline. A lot of science supports it and this is of course an evolving field of discovery. But this guideline so far seems to be solid. Bring some studies that show gluten has no ill effects (for example) and I'm all ears.
Edit: Formatting
|
On May 12 2012 06:01 mordek wrote:
Another common counterargument is the short average
life expectancy at birth of hunter–gatherers. The problem with
this marker is that it is influenced by fatal events (eg, accidents,
warfare, infections, exposure to the elements) and
childhood mortality. Today, average life expectancy is higher
not because of a healthier diet and lifestyle but owing to better
sanitation, vaccination, antibiotics, quarantine policies,
medical care, political and social stability, and less physical
trauma.
66 Moreover, Gurven and Kaplan,149 in a recent assessment
of the mortality profiles of extant hunter–gatherers for
which sufficient high-quality demographic data exist, concluded
that “modal adult life span is 68–78 years, and that it
was not uncommon for individuals to reach these ages”.
That's besides the point. The poinst of the paleo diet is that humans get sick and fat eating foods they didn't evolve to eat because they can't digest them properly. So they did evolve to eat and not get cancer over heart attacks eating paleo foods. But people in the paleolithic didnt't get old enough for a selection to occur for people who digest foods that were eaten during the paleolithic so they don't get cancer at age 60 or 70. And even when they do get 60 or 70 and some didn't die because they had better genes for eating the foods they were eating, that doesn't really help their genes become more dominant.
Then comes the point that paleolithic people in general didn't eat a whole lot of meat and did eat plenty of grains, legumes and other starchy foods.
And in the end the labeling of foods on people of the paleolithic as a whole is silly as it would range from almost 100% fruits to almost 100% meat.
No one is saying people in the paleolithic would die earlier because of what they eat if they didn't die of diet-unrelated causes.
But really I think this is no use. If people understood the theory of evolution, which is so so so widely misunderstood even by people who claim to support it, they wouldn't bother defending a paleolithic diet in the first place.
Let's follow the Inuit diet. Let's sit on our asses all day and eat 100% whale lard and we won't get any heart diseases. (they do suffer health problems because of their diet btw)
In the end the reason why hunter gatherers aren't obese is that it is basically impossible to get overweight by food you have to collect from nature yourself. And in the end you will have to die of something one day. So when you are old enough you can either get heart disease of cancer regardless of your diet.
|
Sigh.
I can see arguments for and against legumes. If they don't bother you I don't have any problem with that. Same with dairy.
Starchy foods like sweet potatoes, white potatoes et al were eating by hunter gatherers. Nothing wrong with that.
Grains really get me going though (not that I avoid them completely) but they are pretty much empty calories and have no redeeming nutritional value. Hence, why companies enrich their cereal grains, pasta, etc. with vitamins and minerals because they don't have enough to actually live and thrive off them.
As you can see in the below link, Paleo pretty much has hundreds and thousands of time the RDA of vitamins and minerals in the diet.... much more wholly nutritious than any other standard diet where most of the carbohydrate base comes from grains.
http://robbwolf.com/2010/04/16/kids-paleo-and-nutrient-density/
"Paleo" is continuing to evolve, and a lot of it is more moderate than you would expect. Except for grains. Grains are always eschewed and for good reasons.
|
If you think grains are empty calories then you have been mislead because they aren't. It is not even close.
The thing is people often eat too many calories and many of them come from carbs. And those carbs are simple carbs with no fiber.
Culinary nuts and grains are the same thing. Also, rice is a grain.
I suggest you read up which foods have what nutrition:
http://nutritiondata.self.com
Don't forget that people need their carbs. It is our primary energy source.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
