They are "devoid of nutrition" compared to fruits and vegetables iIncluding starchy tubers like sweet potatoes, especially as they have to be enriched with vitamins and minerals.
I suggest you read about nutrition to educate yourself on that.
People don't NEED carbs to live, but some amount is required to thrive. Average of modern hunter gatherers who lead fairly active lives is around 110-200g carbs per day. On 2000 kcal diet that's around 22-40% carbohydrates.
I love how everyone who doesn't do any research on paleo thinks it's low carb and high protein and that all that is recommended is to eat 100% meat.
It's interesting how the argument is evolving into. There's some things to take note though: When quoting scientific papers, beware of vested interests. Most of these studies are carried out by grants provided by some organization with ulterior motives. They'll publish anything that supports their viewpoint, while deliberately leaving out conflicting results. Just take everything with a grain of salt. Take other sources with a bucket of salt though.. random websites with no citations (or dubious ones) are not a good source of information. In summary, the benefits or drawbacks of the Paleo diet have not been proven conclusively.
However, it is impossible to feed the world on a Paleo diet. Carbohydrates, criticized by almost every diet as empty calories, are much needed to feed the ~7 billion people on this planet. Wheat, rice and other grains have some of the highest yields per unit of land, and land is extremely scarce. Carbohydrates are good at providing calories cheaply, they're only bad if consumed in excess. In fact, humans don't need ridiculous amounts of protein/vitamins/minerals/whatever you can think of. Excess is readily excreted. All that extra protein is just gonna be converted into urea.
You flat out ignore all the vitamins, amino acids and minerals that are in grains. How can that even be possible? How are they so much less than those in nuts, which are even higher in calories?
Heh makes a good point. What we need to do is provide everyone with their daily recommended dosages. To provide people with their required calories, carb foods are the way to go. No we don't need carbs. But the point is that if there is any good we evolved to digest properly during our hunter gathering years, they are carbs. You seem to have a vast misunderstanding about what humans ate during the hunter gathering period:
So it is funny you think people think paleo diet is 100% meat when hunter gatherers barely did any real hunting and basically ate almost no hunted prey.
All this things you researched into this paleo diet all ended up being a conspiracy theory. And now you basically know nothing about nutrition at all. Pretty sad.
On May 12 2012 19:09 Miyoshino wrote: So it is funny you think people think paleo diet is 100% meat when hunter gatherers barely did any real hunting and basically ate almost no hunted prey.
no one ever said paleo is 100% meat. eshlow even said in his last post that it wasnt:
On May 12 2012 08:50 eshlow wrote: Average of modern hunter gatherers who lead fairly active lives is around 110-200g carbs per day. On 2000 kcal diet that's around 22-40% carbohydrates.
I love how everyone who doesn't do any research on paleo thinks it's low carb and high protein and that all that is recommended is to eat 100% meat.
also, what is it with you and nuts? why do you keep comparing grains to nuts? I dont understand...
no one ever said paleo is 100% meat. eshlow even said in his last post that it wasnt:
I said he said he thinks people think paloe is 100% meat because he said that in his last post
well yeah that IS what most people (and he probably means laymans here) think. obviously people who have done the science/research know that this is not true.
On May 12 2012 19:17 Miyoshino wrote:
Because most culinary nuts are seeds like grains. Yet nuts are white and grains are black.
How do rice eaters for life like Asians start to follow paleo diet?? As i understand grains, so rice is disallowed..so any good reasonable/cheap substitutes in order for one to start following it properly? Sorry new to this.
Heh_, you do know that farming wheat and other comparable argicultural products literally RAPE the land of top soil nutrients right? That's why agriculture had relied on animals for manure for fertilzer for thousands of years... and why the fertilizer industry is so big in agriculture. Sustainable agriculture would have to follow a paleo model to some extent because of the co-existance of animals
Miyoshino,
Going from one hyperbole to the next. Meh, most of it was probably my fault, but most of the people that come here come to troll. If you're not here to troll... fine we'll make this a good discussion then.
The plant to animal ratios of our ancesters and studies on hunter gatherers suggest "the animal-derived calorie percentage ranges from 25% in the Gwi people of southern Africa, to 99% in Alaskan Nunamiut. [...] The mean diet among modern hunter-gatherer societies is estimated to consist of 64–68% of animal calories and 32–36% of plant calories."
[...]However, great disparities do exist, even between different modern hunter-gatherer societies. The animal-derived calorie percentage ranges from 25% in the Gwi people of southern Africa, to 99% in Alaskan Nunamiut.
Remember, these people aren't hunting animals for meat and leaving the rest. They are eating everything off of the corpse -- the fat, the organs, and even the brain sometimes -- which provide a massive amount of calories and vitamins and minerals.
Though humans can live off very few plant calories, but they have to have some source of animal calories as stated above.
And gluten not being bad -- that just ignores a lot of the scientific literature. As I said in the OP, go search through pubmed for transglutaminase and/or gluten and any of the "diseases of civilization" and you'll see the conncetions.
On May 12 2012 22:52 eshlow wrote: Heh_, you do know that farming wheat and other comparable argicultural products literally RAPE the land of top soil nutrients right? That's why agriculture had relied on animals for manure for fertilzer for thousands of years... and why the fertilizer industry is so big in agriculture. Sustainable agriculture would have to follow a paleo model to some extent because of the co-existance of animals
Miyoshino,
Going from one hyperbole to the next. Meh, most of it was probably my fault, but most of the people that come here come to troll. If you're not here to troll... fine we'll make this a good discussion then.
The plant to animal ratios of our ancesters and studies on hunter gatherers suggest "the animal-derived calorie percentage ranges from 25% in the Gwi people of southern Africa, to 99% in Alaskan Nunamiut. [...] The mean diet among modern hunter-gatherer societies is estimated to consist of 64–68% of animal calories and 32–36% of plant calories."
[...]However, great disparities do exist, even between different modern hunter-gatherer societies. The animal-derived calorie percentage ranges from 25% in the Gwi people of southern Africa, to 99% in Alaskan Nunamiut.
Remember, these people aren't hunting animals for meat and leaving the rest. They are eating everything off of the corpse -- the fat, the organs, and even the brain sometimes -- which provide a massive amount of calories and vitamins and minerals.
Though humans can live off very few plant calories, but they have to have some source of animal calories as stated above.
And gluten not being bad -- that just ignores a lot of the scientific literature. As I said in the OP, go search through pubmed for transglutaminase and/or gluten and any of the "diseases of civilization" and you'll see the conncetions.
Sounds like you know a lot about farming... About polyculture, crop rotation, leaving land to lay fallow, biological pest control, genetic modifications etc etc. Don't know how you summarized that as "modern agriculture is bad". Paleolithic life had much lower population densities. There is not enough land. If the world followed your ideas, billions of people will die of starvation.
I watched the entire 10 minute video and not once did it mention grains. It said we should eat starches from plants, tubers and meat. It said meat was around 25% of our diet and that humans have the ability to eat a wide range of food. Not sure how "we need to eat grains" comes in here at all.
btw i cant eat gluten because I have celiac disease. I am pretty close to paleo but I eat rice because I want to and dont care about following paleo. Im fine with hardly any grains.
On May 13 2012 02:17 TheResidentEvil wrote: I watched the entire 10 minute video and not once did it mention grains. It said we should eat starches from plants, tubers and meat. It said meat was around 25% of our diet and that humans have the ability to eat a wide range of food. Not sure how "we need to eat grains" comes in here at all.
btw i cant eat gluten because I have celiac disease. I am pretty close to paleo but I eat rice because I want to and dont care about following paleo. Im fine with hardly any grains.
gluten really affects my eczema, so I always try to avoid it. Btw are your celiac symptoms severe?
I stopped eating grains for 6 weeks completely. I added 7,5kg to my bench press, while losing 2,5kg bodyweight. I will be the first chilean to bench double bodyweight without a shirt, hopefully this year.
Sounds like you know a lot about farming... About polyculture, crop rotation, leaving land to lay fallow, biological pest control, genetic modifications etc etc. Don't know how you summarized that as "modern agriculture is bad". Paleolithic life had much lower population densities. There is not enough land. If the world followed your ideas, billions of people will die of starvation.
People are already dying of starvation and killing themselves by eating shit food. I bet there is a sustainable way to grow vegetables and better starches in more than enough quantity. We could also be eating more sustainable farm animals - sheep, goats, and deer are better options than cows.
On May 13 2012 01:49 eshlow wrote: If you're so enlightened perhaps you can educate us peons with some data on sustainable agriculture.
All those stuff I've mentioned allow massive boosting of crop yields, year after year. There's nothing wrong with using fertilizers; it's a form of technology that can be exploited to greatly boost crop yields. Growing random stuff and calling it "Paleo" isn't gonna feed people. If you want to run a monoculture, you're gonna run into all those problems you're complaining about. If you want to let whatever random shit grow, you're gonna have low yields and run into difficulties harvesting.
On May 13 2012 10:05 Bigtony wrote: People are already dying of starvation and killing themselves by eating shit food. I bet there is a sustainable way to grow vegetables and better starches in more than enough quantity. We could also be eating more sustainable farm animals - sheep, goats, and deer are better options than cows.
Do you know what's going on in other parts of the world? A billion people having difficulties putting food in their mouths. Any kind of food, mind you. We're not talking about poor people who can't afford to eat proper food. I can tell you of an alternative starch-based food that is key to alleviating malnutrition in Africa: cassava. Good luck finding other stuff.
How the heck are cows any more terrible than other farm animals? They're all herbivores and eating meat is naturally more inefficient than eating plants. Unless you consider methane to somehow "reduce" yields.
EPT
