|
I gotta say, some of those studies to prove the advantages of paleo are pretty bullshit, it seems like they often go into these with the purpose of doing so
like in one article linked to in the OP
in regards to someone disagreeing with paleo and saying that experts recommend dairy products she says:
"If the truth be known, in a randomized controlled trial, 24 8-y-old boys were asked to take 53 g of protein as milk or meat daily (23). After only 7 days on the high milk diet, the boys became insulin resistant. This is a condition that precedes the development of type 2 diabetes. "
What the fuck is the point of that? So the amount of milk and meat both have the same amount of proteins - 53 g... so what, we'll just disregard everything else and only think about the protein?
Nevermind that this means drinking 1.5 l of milk, which is over 1000 kJ of energy and like 75g of carbohydrates, while eating 53g protein through meat is only like 300 kj. I bet the children drinking all that milk ended up eating some more as well since drinking stuff doesnt exactly make you full.
I'm pretty sure none of the diets recommended for diabetes-patients contain anyone drinking 1.6 liters of milk every day. Kinda disgusting to think they do these kinds of tests on children just to prove a point.
Soon I'll do a test to prove that carrots are unhealthy by letting some children eat 5 kilos of carrots each day and get their 53g of protein that way.
It would also be nice if their were some bigger studies. These studies, at least the ones ive read about, usually seem to have like.. 8 to 30 people participating. The big nutritional studies, like on whether fibres help against cancer have many many thousand participants - and even those are often hard to draw conclusions from.
Also its sad how all these sorts of studies, in any field really, doesnt even have to be about food, act like they found something huge. if 1 in 100 000 in one group develops one disease and in the other group 2 in 100 000 do, they just talk about that as a 100% risk increase for those in group 2... huge right?!
With nutritional studies youll probably find some supporting any sort of diet types. I dont have any links available but I know there were some saying dairy productions and rice both help against diabetes.
What I also dislike a bit about the paleo studies is that they talk about the high meat diets only in diabetic and cardiovascular terms, while not talking about high red meat intake probably significantly increasing the risk of colorectal cancer.
Also I think the whole reasoning "humans have lived on with real food for millions of years, so it must be the most healthy way for us now as well" is really stupid and insanely nonsensical as well..
anyways, thats just my little rant,
All of this being said I do think that paleo is a good, healthy way to eat and all of eshlows threads are awesome, these last few weeks i ate kind of a lot of sweets and stopped going to the gym, ill try to eat paleo style at least to some extent and work out again some more the next months. I wont completely stop eating bread though and flat out saying dairy is unhealthy is pretty bs imo.
|
Haha, I didn't like all the Paleo-hype until most authors started to say it is ok to eat potatoes. there is no nutrition for me without potatoes so after that I could join the winning team 
Joking aside, even if I would eat strict paleo, I would never give my diet a label, it doesn't serve much purpose for myself. And in this forum, by now we use the term so broadly (as "eat unprocessed high-quality food"), that it really is a guideline where you can't be too far off the mark with.
Also I think the whole reasoning "humans have lived on with real food for millions of years, so it must be the most healthy way for us now as well" is really stupid and insanely nonsensical as well.
I think I know what you mean, but I would assume that you also would agree that vegetables are probably better for you than a bag of cookies, which is probably the way most people who are not on a religious-paleo-diet-crusade would use that sentence. Of course as soon as it comes to stuff like diary products, the distinction becomes much harder,
And nutritional studies are pretty much all very suspect to me. You really need meta-studies or clinical controlled studies with lots of people to get meaningful results. But afaik paleo-type diets score very well on those.
|
On October 17 2011 22:57 7mk wrote:
I gotta say, some of those studies to prove the advantages of paleo are pretty bullshit, it seems like they often go into these with the purpose of doing so
like in one article linked to in the OP
in regards to someone disagreeing with paleo and saying that experts recommend dairy products she says:
"If the truth be known, in a randomized controlled trial, 24 8-y-old boys were asked to take 53 g of protein as milk or meat daily (23). After only 7 days on the high milk diet, the boys became insulin resistant. This is a condition that precedes the development of type 2 diabetes. "
What the fuck is the point of that? So the amount of milk and meat both have the same amount of proteins - 53 g... so what, we'll just disregard everything else and only think about the protein?
Nevermind that this means drinking 1.5 l of milk, which is over 1000 kJ of energy and like 75g of carbohydrates, while eating 53g protein through meat is only like 300 kj. I bet the children drinking all that milk ended up eating some more as well since drinking stuff doesnt exactly make you full.
I'm pretty sure none of the diets recommended for diabetes-patients contain anyone drinking 1.6 liters of milk every day. Kinda disgusting to think they do these kinds of tests on children just to prove a point.
Soon I'll do a test to prove that carrots are unhealthy by letting some children eat 5 kilos of carrots each day and get their 53g of protein that way.
It would also be nice if their were some bigger studies. These studies, at least the ones ive read about, usually seem to have like.. 8 to 30 people participating. The big nutritional studies, like on whether fibres help against cancer have many many thousand participants - and even those are often hard to draw conclusions from.
Also its sad how all these sorts of studies, in any field really, doesnt even have to be about food, act like they found something huge. if 1 in 100 000 in one group develops one disease and in the other group 2 in 100 000 do, they just talk about that as a 100% risk increase for those in group 2... huge right?!
With nutritional studies youll probably find some supporting any sort of diet types. I dont have any links available but I know there were some saying dairy productions and rice both help against diabetes.
I think you have to learn a thing or two about studies in general. statistical significance, control groups and all that.
On October 17 2011 22:57 7mk wrote:
What I also dislike a bit about the paleo studies is that they talk about the high meat diets only in diabetic and cardiovascular terms, while not talking about high red meat intake probably significantly increasing the risk of colorectal cancer.
show me some reliable studies that prove anything of the sort. I mean sure, if you ONLY eat red meat then I guess you're right. but come on, it should be common knowledge by now that vegetables are a very important part of every good diet!
On October 17 2011 22:57 7mk wrote:
Also I think the whole reasoning "humans have lived on with real food for millions of years, so it must be the most healthy way for us now as well" is really stupid and insanely nonsensical as well..
well, if you look at the data, there does seem to be a correlation between the "invention" of agriculture and an increase in the so called diseases of civilization. what exactly makes you think that "modern" humans are so different than the humans that lived in the stone age?
|
On October 18 2011 00:57 Zafrumi wrote:
I think you have to learn a thing or two about studies in general. statistical significance, control groups and all that.
Lol, and what makes you think I dont know about any of this?
show me some reliable studies that prove anything of the sort. I mean sure, if you ONLY eat red meat then I guess you're right. but come on, it should be common knowledge by now that vegetables are a very important part of every good diet!
European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition suggesting increase of 100g of meat per day increases risk of colorectal cancer by 50%. Of course increase of 100g of meat per day is a lot, but i mean i dont get diabetes by having some chocolate either. (And yes I'll still eat as much meat as I want, I just dont like that its never mentioned in those paleo articles)
well, if you look at the data, there does seem to be a correlation between the "invention" of agriculture and an increase in the so called diseases of civilization. what exactly makes you think that "modern" humans are so different than the humans that lived in the stone age?
Are you really asking that? Well theres like a billion things that were different but to mention just a few, a) people didnt have unlimited supply of what to eat and they didnt sit on their couch or chair all day in front of their pcs and TVs so no matter what kind of food they eat, theyres not gonna be a lot of fat fucks and b) they had a life expectency of like 18 years. Of course theres not a lot of people dying of cancer and myocardial infarcts when they die of some infection at the age of ten...
I pretty much agree with everything you say Malinor
|
On October 18 2011 01:19 7mk wrote:
European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition suggesting increase of 100g of meat per day increases risk of colorectal cancer by 50%. Of course increase of 100g of meat per day is a lot, but i mean i dont get diabetes by having some chocolate either. (And yes I'll still eat as much meat as I want, I just dont like that its never mentioned in those paleo articles)
I don't think any study has ever found a direct cause-and-effect relationship between red-meat consumption and cancer. And the population studies are not really conclusive since they rely on big survey's of people's eating habits and various health issues, from which they try to find trends and not causes.
Personally I don't think red meat has any effect on cancer at all, but the way you prepare/cook the meat may have.
|
On October 18 2011 01:19 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 00:57 Zafrumi wrote:
I think you have to learn a thing or two about studies in general. statistical significance, control groups and all that.
Lol, and what makes you think I dont know about any of this? Show nested quote +
show me some reliable studies that prove anything of the sort. I mean sure, if you ONLY eat red meat then I guess you're right. but come on, it should be common knowledge by now that vegetables are a very important part of every good diet!
European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition suggesting increase of 100g of meat per day increases risk of colorectal cancer by 50%. Of course increase of 100g of meat per day is a lot, but i mean i dont get diabetes by having some chocolate either. (And yes I'll still eat as much meat as I want, I just dont like that its never mentioned in those paleo articles) Show nested quote +
well, if you look at the data, there does seem to be a correlation between the "invention" of agriculture and an increase in the so called diseases of civilization. what exactly makes you think that "modern" humans are so different than the humans that lived in the stone age?
Are you really asking that? Well theres like a billion things that were different but to mention just a few, a) people didnt have unlimited supply of what to eat and they didnt sit on their couch or chair all day in front of their pcs and TVs so no matter what kind of food they eat, theyres not gonna be a lot of fat fucks and b) they had a life expectency of like 18 years. Of course theres not a lot of people dying of cancer and myocardial infarcts when they die of some infection at the age of ten...
I meant more from a medical/biological standpoint 
you are right, nutrition is probably not the solution to ALL of our problems. now I am no anthropology expert, but I think I remember a passage from robb wolf's book "the paleo solution" that even hunter-gatherers had extended periods of times where they were just sitting around, doing nothing. I mean, its not like they had to battle huge-ass tigers every second of their lives, right? and once you have killed an animal (which admittedly was harder than it is nowadays) you had food to last you for days or even weeks.
so the lesson should be: eat healthy, exercise 3 times a week and become a baller!
|
One thing that 7mk has brought up here is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Nearly every side of this great diet debate selectively cites studies and selectively denies studies based on the same reasoning. In my opinion, the truth is that there is very little actual science being done in nutrition these days (and in almost any field, sadly enough), and mostly just loose correlations based on shoddy data which is then presented as if it is somehow fact. Mat Lalonde has said a lot of great stuff to this end on some of Robb Wolf's podcasts.
I personally do agree with paleo and consider myself a strong adherent, but it does bother me how hypocritical many advocates are in denouncing studies (for valid reasons) but then in the next breath citing studies that use similarly poor methodology but happen to come out with a conclusion in support of paleo. It just goes to show how important it is to always be rational and use your head!
|
On October 18 2011 01:50 Ingenol wrote:
One thing that 7mk has brought up here is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Nearly every side of this great diet debate selectively cites studies and selectively denies studies based on the same reasoning. In my opinion, the truth is that there is very little actual science being done in nutrition these days (and in almost any field, sadly enough), and mostly just loose correlations based on shoddy data which is then presented as if it is somehow fact. Mat Lalonde has said a lot of great stuff to this end on some of Robb Wolf's podcasts.
I personally do agree with paleo and consider myself a strong adherent, but it does bother me how hypocritical many advocates are in denouncing studies (for valid reasons) but then in the next breath citing studies that use similarly poor methodology but happen to come out with a conclusion in support of paleo. It just goes to show how important it is to always be rational and use your head!
yeah I tend to agree with this. I enjoy eating very close to paleo and I definitely feel better than ever, but everyone has to decide for themselves what they want to believe.
|
The paleo diet is probably the most healthy and natural way of eating - given that you eat like people did back then. They probably had to live on nuts,seeds and fruit for some periods of time and didnt eat large quantities of meat every day
|
I don't think I've seen a reliable study that shows a link between red meat and cancer.
Processed [red] meats and cancer, yes.
[Red] meats and cancer, by themselves, no.
In terms of clinical significance in studies regarding CVD et al. Paleo has shown a lot of strong results compared to most of the other "diets" out there. Which should be pretty obvious why it is effective.
But yeah, overarching studies in health it's too hard to control what people eat and whatnot to draw a lot of strong conclusions from a clusterf*ck of data.
Basically, eat real food.
|
Well I mentioned the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, for red meat it was 50%, for processed meat something like 85%.
And just by searching for "meat cancer" on pubmed theres quite a few studies showing significant correlation between meat intake and colorectal cancer / prostate cancer / general mortality.
One I found interesting was a series of tests on animals, showing that higher meat consumption in rats correlates with shorter colonocyte telomores (which protect from DNA damage)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21963168
Theres also one article of september 2011 gathering all the info of all the related pubmed-publicized studies and it also showed a connection between the group that ate a lot of meat and cancer.
The problem with that one was that there were just three categories - alcoholics, "healthy" - which meant focus on vegetables and fruit, and "western" - focus on red and processed meat. I suppose its tough to do it better because all the different studies have different kind of test groups.
So yeah, almost none of these studies really prove anything, I'm sure there are others contradicting those results and none of these are actually about paleo, and the "western group" in that summarizing study is surely far from what paleo is about.
But overall it shows how there's a different side of each story.
Then again, I suppose it's not the job of people trying to promote paleo to show these sorts of things.
|
Yeah, I generally agree with that.
The only thing I would say is 100% true all of the time is that a low carb or ketogenic diet (preferably Paleo) is optimal for those with significant metabolic syndrome, diabetes, cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, autoimmune, etc. disease present because it shows extremely good results.
|
avocado oil vs olive oil for general/stirfry cooking
I can't find coconut oil anywhere
|
|
|
This is great man.
Adding it to the Resources section
|
Netherlands13554 Posts
Red meat causing cancer is something people love to prove, but in reality they can't (at least not up till now). The media also loves putting sensational news on the frontpage and uses studies made by bad scientists (reference, whole presentation is good) as source.
Mark Sisson extrapolated on one such study in a blogpost he made at his site:
Is Red Meat Unhealthy?
|
On October 19 2011 22:09 Cambium wrote:
avocado oil vs olive oil for general/stirfry cooking
I can't find coconut oil anywhere
Wait, why is coconut oil being suggested? O_O Isn't coconut oil the thing they used to put on butter that was incredibly unhealthy due to its high saturated fat content?
|
On October 20 2011 08:37 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 22:09 Cambium wrote:
avocado oil vs olive oil for general/stirfry cooking
I can't find coconut oil anywhere Wait, why is coconut oil being suggested? O_O Isn't coconut oil the thing they used to put on butter that was incredibly unhealthy due to its high saturated fat content?
Coconut oil is awesome.
Read the saturated fat/cholesterol post in the main topic of the general nutrition thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=261918
I detail various forms of saturated fat (no, they are not all created equal).
The main type of saturated fat in coconut is EXTREMELY healthy.
Butter is not bad for health either as the saturated fats in milk, cheeses, etc. have a fair mix of good qualities outweighing some of the bad.
After all, the fats in these types of foods are MADE for animals to grow properly as infants to adults. Evolution didn't make milks from mothers to childs give heart disease.
|
Are there any simple, regular meals for breakfast, lunch, and dinner?
Being a college student, I can't afford a variety of food, but I can save money by buying in bulk. Also, I have no cooking backgrounds yet I don't mind that at all. I'm one of those people who can eat the same meal every single day for about a month before getting tired of it (ie chicken and rice when I was younger). So if I can learn only a few meals, that should last me a semester before getting sick of it.
What are some of your favorite simple paleo meals that you can eat on a regular basis?
|
On October 20 2011 16:07 billy5000 wrote:
Are there any simple, regular meals for breakfast, lunch, and dinner?
Being a college student, I can't afford a variety of food, but I can save money by buying in bulk. Also, I have no cooking backgrounds yet I don't mind that at all. I'm one of those people who can eat the same meal every single day for about a month before getting tired of it (ie chicken and rice when I was younger). So if I can learn only a few meals, that should last me a semester before getting sick of it.
What are some of your favorite simple paleo meals that you can eat on a regular basis?
its incredibly easy. throw a fistful of a protein source (meat, fish) and some vegetables in a pan, brown it (preferrably using coconut oil), cover it until its done, eat it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
