The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits, vegetables, and other safe starches (such as sweet potatoes).
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar.
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
[...]
In modern hunter-gatherer diets, dietary protein is characteristically elevated (19–35% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrate (22–40% of energy)
2000 kcal diet that's:
95g-175g of protein (hmmm... seems eeriely familiar to around .75-1g/lbs that people recommend for ATHLETIC populations... as you know hunter gatherers actually have to move around to get their food and hunt...). And they didn't have chronic kidney disease either!
110g-200g of carbohydrates -- which is not even low carb at all. This is what moderate carbohydrates look like, unless you are competing in an endurance sport which you may need upwards of 250g+ of carbs (which is 50% carbs). Low carb is <100g and ketogenic IIRC is <40-50 carbs or thereabouts.
It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
Here are two very excellent links detailing various things. Please read!!
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Oh wow I was about to post Mark's website haha, glad there's a thread for this on TL : ) I've always tried to get Paleo right, and am trying again, so hard to drop rice but I've dropped wheat long ago
On September 21 2011 10:58 Dalguno wrote: www.marksdailyapple.com is a pretty good site that I've used in the past. Mark Sisson seems to know what's up.
It's already in the sticky but it's in the spoiler. I will unspoiler the spoiler at the bottom since it contains a lot of links.
I'm on a semi-paleo diet right now--that is, if the term "semi-paleo" makes any sense. I'm trying to gain weight so a full paleo diet would be far too expensive and far too difficult to maintain, but my general staples are these:
Proteins:
Chicken Salmon Beef Eggs Pork
Carbs:
White rice Sugary cereal (only post workout) Gluten-free oats (available on iHerb!) White potatoes Sweet potatoes
These +++milk (2 liters/day)
As I said before, I can't do full paleo due to economic and time constraints. But, this seems to be working for me.
On September 21 2011 22:55 eshlow wrote: ^^ I have to note that cereals are absolute no-nos on Paleo.
But otherwise, it looks pretty good.
(Also, white rice is not technically paleo either... not sure about gluten free oats)
Cereals may be absolute no-nos on paleo, but they are absolutely yes-yes in deliciousness :D. Plus it's only a couple of bowls a week, just post workout.
Oats are generally not considered a standard paleo food, but as we know, these staples like oatmeal, rice, soy, bread, pasta, etc. exist on a continuum of "maybe not so bad" to "do not eat." I consider rice and oats to be more towards the "maybe not so bad" side, while the breads, pastas, and cereals (of course) to be more towards the "do not eat" one.
I would probably be better off eating some fruit post workout, but it's like $2.50 for a single piece of fruit here.. I'm already spending $15-$20/day on food, not even counting when I go out with my girlfriend or something. Why are you so expensive Japan .
What's great about paleo compared to other diets is that you can eat as much as you want... of the right stuff.
Many diets ask you to restrict your calories, saying that it's a simple formula of [calories consumed - calories spent = weight loss] if negative. Unfortunately for math diet buffs, the body does not work like a calculator, and is a complex system of reactions and interactions.
For example, a woman on full paleo will lose tons of weight and become lean on a 2200 calorie Paleo diet. Most diets that women have to follow will try to get them below 1500 calories if they can. (weight watchers, for example)
For people that are looking for an interesting, well researched book by a scientific journalist can read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. It is not exactly paleo but very close, and explains very well how our modern society came to believe that carbs are awesome and fat is satan. If you shop on amazon, you will see that book ordered along with Robb Wolf's book.
Also, it's important to note that although the diet has a meat content, you can't just eat any meats. In the paleo books, they recommend lean meats because the quality of the fats in most red meats from farm animals is very poor and contains several toxins and the wrong kinds of fats. The reason for this is that farm animals are fed grains, which makes them sick. Thus, go for lean cuts or extra lean ground beef.
You can, however, eat the fats from any and all wild game, wild fish, or grass fed beef and cows. The quality of the fats in these meats is exceptional, and has the correct balance of omega 3, 6s etc. (Yes, grass fed cows have omega 3 in their fat, not just fish)
Unfortunately, you must understand that you are either doing paleo, or you are not doing paleo. There is no 50%, or even 90% Paleo. If you eat any type of grains or dairy, you are damaging your system, even if it's once every two weeks. If you follow the Paleo diet correctly, you won't even want to eat grains because you will feel like shit afterwards. You will like feel bloated and crash after eating due to an insulin spike.
Unfortunately, you must understand that you are either doing paleo, or you are not doing paleo. There is no 50%, or even 90% Paleo.
You can definitely do it on a 80-90% paleo. If you have one day in the week where you let loose and eat cake or whatever it's no problem. It's the daily intake that matters, just one day of cheating doesn't change much in your overall long-term metabolism.
In any case, cutting carbs (compared to the regular Western diet) is always a good thing. If you do just that (and eat the right fats according to paleo) you're already making a lot of progress
I was wondering if anyone can suggest something naturally savory/salty to go with eggs over breakfast. hopefully somehting that cooks quickly or is eaten raw. I really dont like dumping salt on eggs but Id like to have some flavor to start out my day
also are cashews a good nut to snack on? they are my favs
I usually put salt/hot sauce on my eggs in the morning. I believe eshlow has a study somewhere from the megathread that sodium intake isn't much of a concern in healthy people.
On September 22 2011 02:58 decafchicken wrote: I usually put salt/hot sauce on my eggs in the morning. I believe eshlow has a study somewhere from the megathread that sodium intake isn't much of a concern in healthy people.
yea i just dont like the taste of pure salt on eggs >_<
On September 22 2011 01:20 Orpheos wrote: I was wondering if anyone can suggest something naturally savory/salty to go with eggs over breakfast. hopefully somehting that cooks quickly or is eaten raw. I really dont like dumping salt on eggs but Id like to have some flavor to start out my day
also are cashews a good nut to snack on? they are my favs
On September 22 2011 01:20 Orpheos wrote: I was wondering if anyone can suggest something naturally savory/salty to go with eggs over breakfast. hopefully somehting that cooks quickly or is eaten raw. I really dont like dumping salt on eggs but Id like to have some flavor to start out my day
On September 22 2011 01:20 Orpheos wrote: I was wondering if anyone can suggest something naturally savory/salty to go with eggs over breakfast. hopefully somehting that cooks quickly or is eaten raw. I really dont like dumping salt on eggs but Id like to have some flavor to start out my day
Bacon.
Everything tastes better with bacon.
this is extremely true. but bacon so expensive >_<
On September 22 2011 01:20 Orpheos wrote: I was wondering if anyone can suggest something naturally savory/salty to go with eggs over breakfast. hopefully somehting that cooks quickly or is eaten raw. I really dont like dumping salt on eggs but Id like to have some flavor to start out my day
Bacon.
Everything tastes better with bacon.
this is extremely true. but bacon so expensive >_<
3-4$ a pound? i usually put 1-2 slices in my eggs in the morning.
Also, just smashed a 2/3 pound burger (no bun) of pasture raised beef...NOM NOM NOM
I follow paleo to some extent. I try to keep things relatively easy for myself. For example I eat no more sweets and have replaced all my snacks (previously chips) with nuts and pure chocolate. By doing this I feel like I give up nothing in my life and it's really easy to commit to.
I don't eat bread anymore at home, but if I go to out for dinner to a restaurant or something I'll still eat it if it's on the table. My breakfast always used to be bread now I'm mostly eating egg+something. Still can't say no to a glass of milk. No more rice/potatoes at dinner at home, but I don't mind eating fries at a restaurant occasionally.
On September 22 2011 06:27 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I follow paleo to some extent. I try to keep things relatively easy for myself. For example I eat no more sweets and have replaced all my snacks (previously chips) with nuts and pure chocolate. By doing this I feel like I give up nothing in my life and it's really easy to commit to.
I don't eat bread anymore at home, but if I go to out for dinner to a restaurant or something I'll still eat it if it's on the table. My breakfast always used to be bread now I'm mostly eating egg+something. Still can't say no to a glass of milk. No more rice/potatoes at dinner at home, but I don't mind eating fries at a restaurant occasionally.
Haha, you pretty much do what I do. Eat Paleo as much as possible, but relax while I'm out and want to have a good time.
Smart man. :p
Also updated OP to make some distinguishing differences from eating Paleo with diseases, as an athlete, healthy, etc.
Paleo seems to be one of those things I'm seeing crop up everywhere from people whose opinions I respect a lot, cool to see it being promoted on TL too.
[url="http://5by5.tv"]5by5[/url] podcasts have a podcast dedicated to Paleo called [url="http://5by5.tv/paleo"]Latest in Paleo[/url] if podcasts are your thing then it might be of interest. I have never actually listened to it, just seen the updates about it mixed in with updates from other podcasts I do listen to from the network.
On September 22 2011 10:52 Bockit wrote: Paleo seems to be one of those things I'm seeing crop up everywhere from people whose opinions I respect a lot, cool to see it being promoted on TL too.
5by5 podcasts have a podcast dedicated to Paleo called Latest in Paleo if podcasts are your thing then it might be of interest. I have never actually listened to it, just seen the updates about it mixed in with updates from other podcasts I do listen to from the network.
Aside: Just found this forum exists!
Added!
Also, added Robb Wolf's podcasts to the bottom as ewll.
On September 24 2011 05:31 eshlow wrote: Do you also think I should add some sleep stuff to this thread?
Not technically Paleo, but in reality is is part of Paleo for decreasing inflammation, insulin resistance, etc.
I think the sleep stuff should be put in general nutrition instead maybe, as one would expect someone to read that first/in conjunction with the Paleo thread.
Well eshlow, I don't know where I read your recommendation to eat sweet potatoes, but thanks for that.
I've eaten sweet potatoes before, and I've liked them a lot, but I never knew they were such a healthy food.
Ever since I've been eating paleo, I've cut out a lot of juices and other sweet things...but man these sweet potatoes are my savior.
I came across this on Wikipedia: "In 1992, the Center for Science in the Public Interest compared the nutritional value of sweet potatoes to other vegetables. Considering fiber content, complex carbohydrates, protein, vitamins A and C, iron, and calcium, the sweet potato ranked highest in nutritional value. According to these criteria, sweet potatoes earned 184 points, 100 points over the next on the list, the common potato."
I understand there's a lot of complex carbs in sweet potatoes which is a good thing. I've started eating like 1-2 sweet potatoes everyday, and I might increase it more because it's really the easiest and most tasty vegetable ever. Can I 'overload' on carbs from these sweet potatoes though? I can eat 3-4 baked sweet potatoes everyday no problem because they're just that good.
On September 26 2011 04:40 JohnnyBanana wrote: Well eshlow, I don't know where I read your recommendation to eat sweet potatoes, but thanks for that.
I've eaten sweet potatoes before, and I've liked them a lot, but I never knew they were such a healthy food.
Ever since I've been eating paleo, I've cut out a lot of juices and other sweet things...but man these sweet potatoes are my savior.
I came across this on Wikipedia: "In 1992, the Center for Science in the Public Interest compared the nutritional value of sweet potatoes to other vegetables. Considering fiber content, complex carbohydrates, protein, vitamins A and C, iron, and calcium, the sweet potato ranked highest in nutritional value. According to these criteria, sweet potatoes earned 184 points, 100 points over the next on the list, the common potato."
I understand there's a lot of complex carbs in sweet potatoes which is a good thing. I've started eating like 1-2 sweet potatoes everyday, and I might increase it more because it's really the easiest and most tasty vegetable ever. Can I 'overload' on carbs from these sweet potatoes though? I can eat 3-4 baked sweet potatoes everyday no problem because they're just that good.
Yes, you can. They do have some fructose and as they are a starch will elicit an insulin response. In a healthy person, this is no problem, but obviously as you become obese and start to have insulin insensitivity issues and problems with eating higher levels of carbs, it can become one.
The reason sweet potatoes are an acceptable carb source on a paleo-style diet is because unlike wheat and other grains they aren't inflammatory.
As long as you eat carbs with your protein and fats you should be fine.
Not that the Kitavan's who eat potatoes as their starch for 70% carbs have heart disease either... but I tend to like keeping things balanced if possible.
What is healthy is so arbitrary nowadays. Grains are bad for you now? Healthy eating is a never-ending vortex that sucks up all your time. At the start of this thread I was going to follow it, but now I am going to quit while I'm ahead.
On September 27 2011 08:02 jbee wrote: What is healthy is so arbitrary nowadays. Grains are bad for you now? Healthy eating is a never-ending vortex that sucks up all your time. At the start of this thread I was going to follow it, but now I am going to quit while I'm ahead.
On September 27 2011 08:02 jbee wrote: What is healthy is so arbitrary nowadays. Grains are bad for you now? Healthy eating is a never-ending vortex that sucks up all your time. At the start of this thread I was going to follow it, but now I am going to quit while I'm ahead.
What is healthy isn't that arbitrary.
The nutrition "industry" is going through the same phase that the cigarette industry went through back in the 80s and 90s. They paid a lot of money to companies to do studies that showed cigs didn't cause cancer. Advertising/commercials to get the public to believe what they wanted them to believe. The same thing is going on with food lobbyists touting grains, processed foods, etc.
Why do you think there are so many myths perpetuated in training/nutrition/etc.? The public believes what "experts" tell them.
I provided recent studies which are turning the tide which prove my point. Regardless, it's your health so shrug.
True, but it's a lil different than the cig example. He is saying don't trust the governments word and is relying on the latest studies as proof. Most health studies are, like you said, junk science. Since we can't even determine if the methodology is correct, we must arbitrarily choose which one to follow. Because of the amount of work and high level of inaccuracy I'll just keep with my normal diet and avoid the obvious bad things.
Heading to Vegas on Wednesday for a Chevelle concert. They don't have much paleo food down there to eat, so it always puts me in a pickle. I probably can go grocery shopping, but I won't have much to spend. Any tips on cheap stuff to buy? I'm thinking lots of sweet potatoes and maybe chicken breasts, perhaps protein bars if I can't find anything else.
On September 27 2011 13:59 Dalguno wrote: Heading to Vegas on Wednesday for a Chevelle concert. They don't have much paleo food down there to eat, so it always puts me in a pickle. I probably can go grocery shopping, but I won't have much to spend. Any tips on cheap stuff to buy? I'm thinking lots of sweet potatoes and maybe chicken breasts, perhaps protein bars if I can't find anything else.
Chicken breast is cheap for a lot of food, I wouldnt get protein bars if you are tight on cash. One good bargain you can buy is if you buy the 60 pack of eggs from the store. Its like a week or two worth of food for so little money
On September 27 2011 13:59 Dalguno wrote: Heading to Vegas on Wednesday for a Chevelle concert. They don't have much paleo food down there to eat, so it always puts me in a pickle. I probably can go grocery shopping, but I won't have much to spend. Any tips on cheap stuff to buy? I'm thinking lots of sweet potatoes and maybe chicken breasts, perhaps protein bars if I can't find anything else.
I believe there's a link in the OP on cheap food shopping. Don't remember what is in it exactly but it may be a good idea to check out
I'm thinking about changing my diet up right now. My current status is I'm attempting to gradually (over the next 3-4 months) put on an additional 10kg of quality mass. At the current moment, I'm semi-paleo. I eat oats, rice, and cereals. I want to cut out the cereals I think (at the very least), and stick to a more fat/protein based diet. I was thinking about doing something like this:
Breakfast: 8 eggs Lunch: 1 cup of oatmeal (measured dry; of course I cook the stuff) with blueberries Post-workout: One large chicken breast with skin, 1 liter of milk, 2 scoops of whey Dinner: 200 grams of beef shortribs (900 calories in this; can't get much more bang for your buck than that), 1/2 cup of rice
This would be a pretty cheap way to get in 4,000 calories a day for me. I think I want to remove the cereal because it can't be doing good for my stomach (which hasn't been agreeing with me lately), but still want to keep my calories high. My macronutrients would be 235 grams of fat (52% of total cals), 290 grams of protein (29% of total cals), and 195 grams of carbs (19% total cals).
Does this look like a solid eating plan? I know, not 100% hardcore paleo, but I think paleo enough.
Edit: I edited the veggies out for ease. I'll eat some spinach or something with my dinner too.
On September 27 2011 22:39 RosaParksStoleMySeat wrote: I'm thinking about changing my diet up right now. My current status is I'm attempting to gradually (over the next 3-4 months) put on an additional 10kg of quality mass. At the current moment, I'm semi-paleo. I eat oats, rice, and cereals. I want to cut out the cereals I think (at the very least), and stick to a more fat/protein based diet. I was thinking about doing something like this:
Breakfast: 8 eggs Lunch: 1 cup of oatmeal (measured dry; of course I cook the stuff) with blueberries Post-workout: One large chicken breast with skin, 1 liter of milk, 2 scoops of whey Dinner: 200 grams of beef shortribs (900 calories in this; can't get much more bang for your buck than that), 1/2 cup of rice
This would be a pretty cheap way to get in 4,000 calories a day for me. I think I want to remove the cereal because it can't be doing good for my stomach (which hasn't been agreeing with me lately), but still want to keep my calories high. My macronutrients would be 235 grams of fat (52% of total cals), 290 grams of protein (29% of total cals), and 195 grams of carbs (19% total cals).
Does this look like a solid eating plan? I know, not 100% hardcore paleo, but I think paleo enough.
Edit: I edited the veggies out for ease. I'll eat some spinach or something with my dinner too.
how are you going to cook your eight eggs in the morning?
Also, since you live in Japan, why not take advantage of their relatively cheap fish? Hotate and salmon are generally cheaper than others.
On September 27 2011 22:39 RosaParksStoleMySeat wrote: I'm thinking about changing my diet up right now. My current status is I'm attempting to gradually (over the next 3-4 months) put on an additional 10kg of quality mass. At the current moment, I'm semi-paleo. I eat oats, rice, and cereals. I want to cut out the cereals I think (at the very least), and stick to a more fat/protein based diet. I was thinking about doing something like this:
Breakfast: 8 eggs Lunch: 1 cup of oatmeal (measured dry; of course I cook the stuff) with blueberries Post-workout: One large chicken breast with skin, 1 liter of milk, 2 scoops of whey Dinner: 200 grams of beef shortribs (900 calories in this; can't get much more bang for your buck than that), 1/2 cup of rice
This would be a pretty cheap way to get in 4,000 calories a day for me. I think I want to remove the cereal because it can't be doing good for my stomach (which hasn't been agreeing with me lately), but still want to keep my calories high. My macronutrients would be 235 grams of fat (52% of total cals), 290 grams of protein (29% of total cals), and 195 grams of carbs (19% total cals).
Does this look like a solid eating plan? I know, not 100% hardcore paleo, but I think paleo enough.
Edit: I edited the veggies out for ease. I'll eat some spinach or something with my dinner too.
how are you going to cook your eight eggs in the morning?
Also, since you live in Japan, why not take advantage of their relatively cheap fish? Hotate and salmon are generally cheaper than others.
Scrambled eggs. I never have trouble eating huge quantities of eggs; they're like my favorite food. I may even make a massive omelet every morning. But, in the long run, I may just end up cooking them the night before and throwing them in the microwave after. Some mornings I don't have the most time.
The thing with fish is the caloric bang for my buck, really. Salmon here isn't all that cheap; it's 198 yen for 100 grams. 200 grams of salmon, which would be 396 yen, would contain about 300 calories. These calories would be of the highest quality, but I could get a fatty beef (shortribs, for example) for 500 yen and get in 950 calories with the same protein content and just a ton more fat. Since I'm by no means avoiding fat, I think this is more economical by far.
The chicken is basically for the protein in it. A 280 gram chicken breast is like 250 yen where I am, and sometimes it goes on sale for half that. That 280 grams contains like 90-100 grams of protein, which simply can't be beat for that price.
I was wondering, is Quinoa okay to eat in a paleo diet? I'm allergic to wheat/gluten and I've been considering the transition to paleo as dairy gives me stomach problems, but I eat alot of quinoa. I'm not sure if it's considered a grain since it's technically a seed? Any thoughts? Thanks in advance!
On September 28 2011 17:46 Ryan307 wrote: I was wondering, is Quinoa okay to eat in a paleo diet? I'm allergic to wheat/gluten and I've been considering the transition to paleo as dairy gives me stomach problems, but I eat alot of quinoa. I'm not sure if it's considered a grain since it's technically a seed? Any thoughts? Thanks in advance!
OP's 'no legume' statement kind of bothers me. I've read many diet books/overall health, and I've never read that legumes should be avoided. So I Googled 'what is a legume' to get a list of legumes.
This is the basic list on Wikipedia : alfalfa, clover, peas, beans, lentils, lupins, mesquite, carob, soy, and peanuts.
Are all these legumes high in gluten and potentially bad for you? Which ones may be more harmful? Are peas and beans harmful?
Soy is also a big part of the Okinawa diet. From Wiki: "The traditional diet also includes a relatively small amount of fish (less than half a serving per day) and somewhat more in the way of soy and other legumes (6% of total caloric intake)."
The Okinawa people have a very long life-expectancy, one of the highest in the world.
"Five times as many Okinawans live to be 100 as in the rest of Japan, and the Japanese are the longest-lived nationality in the world. There are 34.7 centenarians for every 100,000 inhabitants, being the highest ratio in the world."
On September 28 2011 21:49 GiYoM wrote: OP's 'no legume' statement kind of bothers me. I've read many diet books/overall health, and I've never read that legumes should be avoided. So I Googled 'what is a legume' to get a list of legumes.
This is the basic list on Wikipedia : alfalfa, clover, peas, beans, lentils, lupins, mesquite, carob, soy, and peanuts.
Are all these legumes high in gluten and potentially bad for you? Which ones may be more harmful? Are peas and beans harmful?
Soy is also a big part of the Okinawa diet. From Wiki: "The traditional diet also includes a relatively small amount of fish (less than half a serving per day) and somewhat more in the way of soy and other legumes (6% of total caloric intake)."
The Okinawa people have a very long life-expectancy, one of the highest in the world.
"Five times as many Okinawans live to be 100 as in the rest of Japan, and the Japanese are the longest-lived nationality in the world. There are 34.7 centenarians for every 100,000 inhabitants, being the highest ratio in the world."
The Japanese diet relies heavily on a lot of fermented soy products, which is different from plain soy. Is it better, I don't know the science, but I thought I'd just point that out.
Also, I think their long life expectancy has to do with
Generally, the traditional diet of the islanders was 20% lower in calories than the Japanese average
Than anything else. Note that an average Japanese person probably consumes 500 to 1000 KCal less than an American (pure bs number based on my empirical observation).
On September 28 2011 21:49 GiYoM wrote: OP's 'no legume' statement kind of bothers me. I've read many diet books/overall health, and I've never read that legumes should be avoided. So I Googled 'what is a legume' to get a list of legumes.
This is the basic list on Wikipedia : alfalfa, clover, peas, beans, lentils, lupins, mesquite, carob, soy, and peanuts.
Are all these legumes high in gluten and potentially bad for you? Which ones may be more harmful? Are peas and beans harmful?
Soy is also a big part of the Okinawa diet. From Wiki: "The traditional diet also includes a relatively small amount of fish (less than half a serving per day) and somewhat more in the way of soy and other legumes (6% of total caloric intake)."
The Okinawa people have a very long life-expectancy, one of the highest in the world.
"Five times as many Okinawans live to be 100 as in the rest of Japan, and the Japanese are the longest-lived nationality in the world. There are 34.7 centenarians for every 100,000 inhabitants, being the highest ratio in the world."
There are a lot of other factors at play here. 6% of their total caloric intake is hardly relevant when you consider the unique Okinawan lifestyle, the community, and other diet factors (such as low amounts of processed foods and almost no sugar). Okinawans spend more time outdoors in the sun for vitamin D, drink on average 3-5 cups of green tea a day, and live actively until they die.
Ever since I started the diet this monday, I've been having some weird problems in the bathroom. It's not really diarrhea in the sense that my stomach is upset, but it's just very liquidy. I have yet to take a solid dump :o Is this a temporary thing?
My usual meals on monday and tuesday:
breakfast: bacon, eggs, spinach snack: apple and avocado lunch: chicken breasts, salad, tomatoes dinner: ground beef and veggies including squash, broccoli, and mushrooms
On September 29 2011 01:07 billy5000 wrote: Ever since I started the diet this monday, I've been having some weird problems in the bathroom. It's not really diarrhea in the sense that my stomach is upset, but it's just very liquidy. I have yet to take a solid dump :o Is this a temporary thing?
My usual meals on monday and tuesday:
breakfast: bacon, eggs, spinach snack: apple and avocado lunch: chicken breasts, salad, tomatoes dinner: ground beef and veggies including squash, broccoli, and mushrooms
I never had such a problem on paleo, but it seems that your diet is spot on. You have plenty of fiber from your spinach, avocado, tomatoes, and other vegetables, so I don't know why you would get liquidy bowel movements now.
I say just stick it out for a few days. Remember that digestion can be an 80 hour process, meaning that your current stool is a product of food you ate before you started paleo.
On September 28 2011 21:49 GiYoM wrote: OP's 'no legume' statement kind of bothers me. I've read many diet books/overall health, and I've never read that legumes should be avoided. So I Googled 'what is a legume' to get a list of legumes.
This is the basic list on Wikipedia : alfalfa, clover, peas, beans, lentils, lupins, mesquite, carob, soy, and peanuts.
Are all these legumes high in gluten and potentially bad for you? Which ones may be more harmful? Are peas and beans harmful?
Soy is also a big part of the Okinawa diet. From Wiki: "The traditional diet also includes a relatively small amount of fish (less than half a serving per day) and somewhat more in the way of soy and other legumes (6% of total caloric intake)."
The Okinawa people have a very long life-expectancy, one of the highest in the world.
"Five times as many Okinawans live to be 100 as in the rest of Japan, and the Japanese are the longest-lived nationality in the world. There are 34.7 centenarians for every 100,000 inhabitants, being the highest ratio in the world."
The short answer is lectins and phytates. Basically, they're anti-nutrients (cause nutrient to not be absorbed even if they're in your intestines) and cause inflammation which is counteractive to being Paleo is. Can wiki those two things if you want.
I would say the main detraction is the phytoestrogens which mimic estrogen obviously. You can probably search stuff on this if you wanted but yeah any time you have compounds that mimic hormones it's generally bad. Also, the phytates suck as well.
As stated before in this thread, most consumption of soy is fermented or very less processed. This tends to be better than the highly processed stuff you see in the supermarket most of the time.
One analogy is processed meat which has been linked to cancer. However, red meat and unprocessed meat in general is not a cardiovascular diseaes or stroke risk.
So basically if you are going to eat soy I would say eat it as unprocessed as possible.
However, from a nutrient standpoint, soy tends to do inferior to meat in terms of protein content and other essential nutrients we need for health, and other fruits and vegetables do better than it from a nutrient and fiber type standpoint.
It's basically the same as grains -- why eat it if it's inferior in nutrients to animals and fruits and vegetables in the same categories?
----------------------
My personal opinion is a hybrid between the (1) why eat it when fruits/vege/meats/etc. are better? and (2) if you're not allergic or it doesn't seem to bother you when you get rid of it for a month or two and then reintroduce it to your diet.. then eat it if you want to.
The main thing I think that most people don't realize is that even if you don't show outward signs of distress like bloating, indigestion, passing gas, etc from grains, dairy, legumes, etc. it can still be low level stuff that will make you feel better once you're off them for a while.
If you want to read a pretty good book on Paleo for layman Robb Wolf's Paleo Solution is a good book to get started with.
----------------------
Also, great to see you posting in here. Most of us are huge fans.
Basically, I have to eat lunch in restaurants with my team everyday M-F, and Japanese food is heavily carb based. So far I've been opting for rice over wheat if possible, is this the correct approach?
What about soba noodles (I would think ~30-50% buckwheat rest wheat) and potatoes (in forms of home-style fries)?
On September 28 2011 21:49 GiYoM wrote: OP's 'no legume' statement kind of bothers me. I've read many diet books/overall health, and I've never read that legumes should be avoided. So I Googled 'what is a legume' to get a list of legumes.
This is the basic list on Wikipedia : alfalfa, clover, peas, beans, lentils, lupins, mesquite, carob, soy, and peanuts.
Are all these legumes high in gluten and potentially bad for you? Which ones may be more harmful? Are peas and beans harmful?
Soy is also a big part of the Okinawa diet. From Wiki: "The traditional diet also includes a relatively small amount of fish (less than half a serving per day) and somewhat more in the way of soy and other legumes (6% of total caloric intake)."
The Okinawa people have a very long life-expectancy, one of the highest in the world.
"Five times as many Okinawans live to be 100 as in the rest of Japan, and the Japanese are the longest-lived nationality in the world. There are 34.7 centenarians for every 100,000 inhabitants, being the highest ratio in the world."
They say 'No Legumes" because during the Paleolithic period, we supposedly did not consume them. The whole premise of this diet is to eat like "Grok"(paleolithic man). I believe you're not supposed to eat bananas either, on this diet.
I agree with the basic principles of this diet, but no legumes is absurd. I remember reading a study that showed the life expectancy of eating various foods, legumes was number one, then fish/seafood, then vegetables, then fruits, and so on.
They are a good source of resistance starch(indigestible starch, ie fiber), magnesium, omega 3's(kidney beans, navy beans, etc), and lots more.
On September 28 2011 21:49 GiYoM wrote: OP's 'no legume' statement kind of bothers me. I've read many diet books/overall health, and I've never read that legumes should be avoided. So I Googled 'what is a legume' to get a list of legumes.
This is the basic list on Wikipedia : alfalfa, clover, peas, beans, lentils, lupins, mesquite, carob, soy, and peanuts.
Are all these legumes high in gluten and potentially bad for you? Which ones may be more harmful? Are peas and beans harmful?
Soy is also a big part of the Okinawa diet. From Wiki: "The traditional diet also includes a relatively small amount of fish (less than half a serving per day) and somewhat more in the way of soy and other legumes (6% of total caloric intake)."
The Okinawa people have a very long life-expectancy, one of the highest in the world.
"Five times as many Okinawans live to be 100 as in the rest of Japan, and the Japanese are the longest-lived nationality in the world. There are 34.7 centenarians for every 100,000 inhabitants, being the highest ratio in the world."
They say 'No Legumes" because during the Paleolithic period, we supposedly did not consume them. The whole premise of this diet is to eat like "Grok"(paleolithic man). I believe you're not supposed to eat bananas either, on this diet.
I agree with the basic principles of this diet, but no legumes is absurd. I remember reading a study that showed the life expectancy of eating various foods, legumes was number one, then fish/seafood, then vegetables, then fruits, and so on.
They are a good source of resistance starch(indigestible starch, ie fiber), magnesium, omega 3's(kidney beans, navy beans, etc), and lots more.
I would definitely say that eliminating grains, junk food, and potential allergins are for the most part the #1 thing you want to do.
Personally I think dairy and legumes are OK as long as you don't have any adverse effects. However, I do think everyone should give it a try and eliminate foods from their diet for at least a month or two and see how they feel as well.
I was just thinking..don't you guys think that some people are well adapted to eating some of the unaccepted foods in this diet? In general, I think it's fine to say that human beings haven't evolved to eat the foods we have today, but who knows, maybe you have acquired a gene that allows you to eat certain processed food. I think the reason why every one of us hasn't acquired this "good" gene is because of the limitations of natural selection set by doctors and technology these days, thus the "good" gene is overshadowed by many more "regular" and "bad" genes.
I'm not trying to start a debate on evolution or anything. Just reinforcing the point that this diet is customizable to you as an individual. Some people are just more tolerable than others.
On September 30 2011 17:06 billy5000 wrote: I was just thinking..don't you guys think that some people are well adapted to eating some of the unaccepted foods in this diet? In general, I think it's fine to say that human beings haven't evolved to eat the foods we have today, but who knows, maybe you have acquired a gene that allows you to eat certain processed food. I think the reason why every one of us hasn't acquired this "good" gene is because of the limitations of natural selection set by doctors and technology these days, thus the "good" gene is overshadowed by many more "regular" and "bad" genes.
I'm not trying to start a debate on evolution or anything. Just reinforcing the point that this diet is customizable to you as an individual. Some people are just more tolerable than others.
Sure. Some people can tolerate dairy and some people can't.
Like I've seen saying on this whole last page for about 3 posts now, it's a good idea to eliminate stuff for at least a month and see how you feel readding it back into your diet.
Sometimes things you didn't think affected you actually affect you. Maybe 10-20% of people can see noticable effects when they eliminate grains from diet, but when people add them back in that percentage actually jumps to around 60-70% as born out by the studies.
So the time eliminating them lets the body acclimate to how it is supposed to be running in a healthy way and then adding them back in shocks the system with them and you get a more potent response that you can feel.
Also, there is virtually no natural selection nowadays in human populations. We still cannot reliably delete or subtract genes from genomes, and people who used to get sick and die at young ages can live due to medical technology. But that's a topic for a different thread.
Regarding grain addiction. Modern foods are designed to give us an overload of what has been called "food reward," that indeed acts much like an opiod on the brain. In addition to simply making us crave them, evidence is mounting that these foods actually change your body's "set-point," meaning that even if genetically you are a lean individual, eating high-reward foods signals your body to store more fat and--even worse--to hold on to this fat even in times of reduced caloric intake, all the while making you crave said foods extremely intensely.
This is all still very much up for debate, but the so-called "food-reward hypothesis of obesity," is covered in depth at http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/ (also listed in this thread's FAQ). If you are obese, carb-addicted and/or to learn more about leptin resistance and its potential role in obesity, www.jackkruse.com is a good site as well.
On September 30 2011 21:26 Ingenol wrote: Regarding grain addiction. Modern foods are designed to give us an overload of what has been called "food reward," that indeed acts much like an opiod on the brain. In addition to simply making us crave them, evidence is mounting that these foods actually change your body's "set-point," meaning that even if genetically you are a lean individual, eating high-reward foods signals your body to store more fat and--even worse--to hold on to this fat even in times of reduced caloric intake, all the while making you crave said foods extremely intensely.
This is all still very much up for debate, but the so-called "food-reward hypothesis of obesity," is covered in depth at http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/ (also listed in this thread's FAQ). If you are obese, carb-addicted and/or to learn more about leptin resistance and its potential role in obesity, www.jackkruse.com is a good site as well.
I'm going to read those links in a bit, thank you.
Hi guys, is it ok to take flax seeds when doing paleo? I drink one tablespoon of flax seeds every morning and evening, because they work very well on my stomach, but I`m not quite sure they`ll fit in a paleo diet.
On October 04 2011 14:16 decafchicken wrote: ate pasta for the first time in forever..upset stomach. not my fault I had no other food
This happens to me once a week.
Me: Hey baby, what do you want for dinner? Girlfriend: Let's go to that Italian restaurant. Me: Alright sure I'll just order something off the side menu.
...Yeah, I'm too lazy to finish this dialogue, but this story ends with me sobbing on the toilet because I tore through an entire pizza and plate of pasta by myself and have to pay the gastrointestinal consequences.
I'm interested in Paleo and adjusting more and more meals to it, however I followed Adkins for a while which in essence is obviously very different but I noticed a few similarities in food choice. Dinners are not much of an issue, but breakfast was harder to maintain mostly due to the lack of variation and it always coming down to eggs. I am looking for other styles of breakfast to mix it up, salads are the first thing that comes to mind but perhaps somebody has other ideas as well?
On October 04 2011 20:04 Liquid`Meat wrote: I'm interested in Paleo and adjusting more and more meals to it, however I followed Adkins for a while which in essence is obviously very different but I noticed a few similarities in food choice. Dinners are not much of an issue, but breakfast was harder to maintain mostly due to the lack of variation and it always coming down to eggs. I am looking for other styles of breakfast to mix it up, salads are the first thing that comes to mind but perhaps somebody has other ideas as well?
Have you considered just skipping breakfast for daily 16-20 hour fasts? I know this seems like I'm taking your issue and suggesting something completely irrelevant, but small periods of fasting can be great for the metabolism. This is how I handle the most inconvenient meal of the day... this and a nice black coffee every morning.
Also, eggs don't make much sense as a breakfast food anyway I feel. They work great as a source of slowly absorbed protein before a lengthy fast (such as a 10:00 meal before bed), but for breakfast, I never understood why it became tradition to eat eggs. I guess they're easily prepared and all, but from a nutritional standpoint, there are better (but much less traditional) things to eat for breakfast.
On October 04 2011 17:06 mdb wrote: Hi guys, is it ok to take flax seeds when doing paleo? I drink one tablespoon of flax seeds every morning and evening, because they work very well on my stomach, but I`m not quite sure they`ll fit in a paleo diet.
Sure. But ALA doesn't really convert to EPA+DHA that well.
Plus, flax seeds are in their husk typically so you're not getting much nutrition from them in the first place unless you mash them up before you eat them. Seeds are meant to get through the digestive system in the feces so they can spread the genome of that particular seed elsewhere.
On October 04 2011 20:04 Liquid`Meat wrote: I'm interested in Paleo and adjusting more and more meals to it, however I followed Adkins for a while which in essence is obviously very different but I noticed a few similarities in food choice. Dinners are not much of an issue, but breakfast was harder to maintain mostly due to the lack of variation and it always coming down to eggs. I am looking for other styles of breakfast to mix it up, salads are the first thing that comes to mind but perhaps somebody has other ideas as well?
I usually try to cook a little extra from dinner the night before for either breakfast or lunch the next day.
Eggs works, any kind of fruit/or vegetable works, steak, bacon, etc. Honestly any type of meat works pretty well if cooked right for breakfast, hah.
goddamn went to germany for vacation over the weekend and drank SO MUCH BEER. and ate a bunch of bread cause european bread >>>> american bread. time to get back on the wagon.
Yeah, any kind of meat can work for breakfast if you're not fasting. You could also do protein powders if you're okay with that.
Just don't eat bacon all the time. It's delicious but paleo people tend to go way overboard on it IMO as it has a pretty bad O6:O3 ratio (even pastured bacon).
I'm interested in trying Paleo but one thing that bothers me is beans. It's starting to get to the colder months and during those months I love to eat chili. I guess my question would be, is there a good replacement for the beans in chili? I think everything else in it is fine (meat, tomatoes, various peppers, onions, garlic, and corn).
On October 04 2011 20:04 Liquid`Meat wrote: I'm interested in Paleo and adjusting more and more meals to it, however I followed Adkins for a while which in essence is obviously very different but I noticed a few similarities in food choice. Dinners are not much of an issue, but breakfast was harder to maintain mostly due to the lack of variation and it always coming down to eggs. I am looking for other styles of breakfast to mix it up, salads are the first thing that comes to mind but perhaps somebody has other ideas as well?
Have you considered just skipping breakfast for daily 16-20 hour fasts? I know this seems like I'm taking your issue and suggesting something completely irrelevant, but small periods of fasting can be great for the metabolism. This is how I handle the most inconvenient meal of the day... this and a nice black coffee every morning.
Also, eggs don't make much sense as a breakfast food anyway I feel. They work great as a source of slowly absorbed protein before a lengthy fast (such as a 10:00 meal before bed), but for breakfast, I never understood why it became tradition to eat eggs. I guess they're easily prepared and all, but from a nutritional standpoint, there are better (but much less traditional) things to eat for breakfast.
Well my breakfast is more around lunchtime anyway, but I don't want to go fasting on purpose. Changing my food is a big enough of a change and if I do these things too radical with a lot of effort then I'm setting myself up for failure in the long run.
I like the idea of cooking a bit extra and use that as breakfast a few times a week and some meat once in a while.
On October 05 2011 01:09 Ingenol wrote: Yeah, any kind of meat can work for breakfast if you're not fasting. You could also do protein powders if you're okay with that.
Just don't eat bacon all the time. It's delicious but paleo people tend to go way overboard on it IMO as it has a pretty bad O6:O3 ratio (even pastured bacon).
Well I don't mind protein powder and still got a few kgs, but it seems to me that protein powder is the opposite of paleo?
Well, it depends on how you define paleo. I generally look at it as a dietary approach that's tailored to our evolutionary physiology. As such, I eschew grains, vegetable proteins, seed oils, etc. etc., that we are not "designed" to eat. Protein powder certainly shouldn't be a staple of your diet, but I see nothing wrong with it in moderation. I personally use micellar casein (whey is apparently rather insulinogenic) without aspartame. I rationalize it somewhat because by taking care of breakfast in such an easy manner, it helps me prepare delicious, real-food lunches and dinners stress free.
I could IF but at the moment I'm trying Dr. Jack Kruse's leptin reset protocol which calls for 50g of protein within 30 minutes of waking. When I have IF'd in the past I just ate two "real" meals per day as Rosa said.
On October 04 2011 20:04 Liquid`Meat wrote: I'm interested in Paleo and adjusting more and more meals to it, however I followed Adkins for a while which in essence is obviously very different but I noticed a few similarities in food choice. Dinners are not much of an issue, but breakfast was harder to maintain mostly due to the lack of variation and it always coming down to eggs. I am looking for other styles of breakfast to mix it up, salads are the first thing that comes to mind but perhaps somebody has other ideas as well?
I eat leftovers. Often soup. It isn't necessary to eat breakfast (the cuisine -- eggs, bacon, etc.) at breakfast (first meal of the day).
Started the Paleo diet this summer, its amazing how good it feels after a couple of days (first days are torture though)
I cheat sometimes though, eating cheese for more protein and well.. alcohol. I eat massive amounts of nuts and berries though which i think is great considering how nutritious it is compared to bread,pasta and rice.
I usually eat:
Nuts (all kinds) Berries (bilberries,lingonberries) Fruit (bananas,citrus fruits,kiwi,strawberries(?)) Meat (red and white) Fish (all kinds, mostly salmon,tuna,mackerel and sardines) Eggs Some vegetables (tomatoes etc) Occasionally cheese edit: forgot about avocados, i eat lotsa them as well
Pretty much all of that every day giving around 3000kcal
On October 06 2011 02:54 Pulimuli wrote: Started the Paleo diet this summer, its amazing how good it feels after a couple of days (first days are torture though)
I cheat sometimes though, eating cheese for more protein and well.. alcohol. I eat massive amounts of nuts and berries though which i think is great considering how nutritious it is compared to bread,pasta and rice.
I usually eat:
Nuts (all kinds) Berries (bilberries,lingonberries) Fruit (bananas,citrus fruits,kiwi,strawberries(?)) Meat (red and white) Fish (all kinds, mostly salmon,tuna,mackerel and sardines) Eggs Some vegetables (tomatoes etc) Occasionally cheese edit: forgot about avocados, i eat lotsa them as well
Pretty much all of that every day giving around 3000kcal
I wouldnt go overboard with nuts. They are pretty overrated imo! Eat a handful each day and leave it at that. Leaves more room for steak!
After a week of bread, pasta, chocolate, and energy bars time to get back into a more paleolish diet. I really don't feel like eating pasta anymore, but my parents basically live off that stuff.
On October 06 2011 02:54 Pulimuli wrote: Started the Paleo diet this summer, its amazing how good it feels after a couple of days (first days are torture though)
I cheat sometimes though, eating cheese for more protein and well.. alcohol. I eat massive amounts of nuts and berries though which i think is great considering how nutritious it is compared to bread,pasta and rice.
I usually eat:
Nuts (all kinds) Berries (bilberries,lingonberries) Fruit (bananas,citrus fruits,kiwi,strawberries(?)) Meat (red and white) Fish (all kinds, mostly salmon,tuna,mackerel and sardines) Eggs Some vegetables (tomatoes etc) Occasionally cheese edit: forgot about avocados, i eat lotsa them as well
Pretty much all of that every day giving around 3000kcal
I wouldnt go overboard with nuts. They are pretty overrated imo! Eat a handful each day and leave it at that. Leaves more room for steak!
Yeah i eat too much nuts but i love em ^^ so much protein and healthy fat
On October 06 2011 16:26 Tanner1274 wrote: I just started paleo and am looking for some good recipes, does anyone know a good site with some good ones or even cookbooks?
On October 06 2011 02:54 Pulimuli wrote: Started the Paleo diet this summer, its amazing how good it feels after a couple of days (first days are torture though)
I cheat sometimes though, eating cheese for more protein and well.. alcohol. I eat massive amounts of nuts and berries though which i think is great considering how nutritious it is compared to bread,pasta and rice.
I usually eat:
Nuts (all kinds) Berries (bilberries,lingonberries) Fruit (bananas,citrus fruits,kiwi,strawberries(?)) Meat (red and white) Fish (all kinds, mostly salmon,tuna,mackerel and sardines) Eggs Some vegetables (tomatoes etc) Occasionally cheese edit: forgot about avocados, i eat lotsa them as well
Pretty much all of that every day giving around 3000kcal
I wouldnt go overboard with nuts. They are pretty overrated imo! Eat a handful each day and leave it at that. Leaves more room for steak!
Yeah i eat too much nuts but i love em ^^ so much protein and healthy fat
They are definitely delicious, but the reason he's saying they're overrated is that they actually don't have very much protein, and the fat in nuts is actually rather unhealthy (mostly PUFA's and mostly omega 6, which is inflammatory).
Obviously we're not diet nazis and only you can decide what's best for your body, but it's good to be aware that if you do start noticing some inflammatory issues--be they skin breakouts, digestive issues, or whatever--nuts are probably a good first guess.
Also, since you seem to eat a lot of fish and a lot of oily/fatty fish at that your omega 3 intake is probably higher than most, which is great!
Think I'm going to stop trying to lose weight for a month and just cut the grains/sugars/crap. At that point I'll try again. It's been so gain/loss for the last forever-long and I'm getting super frustrated.
On October 07 2011 13:27 Dalguno wrote: Think I'm going to stop trying to lose weight for a month and just cut the grains/sugars/crap. At that point I'll try again. It's been so gain/loss for the last forever-long and I'm getting super frustrated.
Sounds like a plan. Generally you want to start with quality and then fine-tune quantity later.
On October 07 2011 13:27 Dalguno wrote: Think I'm going to stop trying to lose weight for a month and just cut the grains/sugars/crap. At that point I'll try again. It's been so gain/loss for the last forever-long and I'm getting super frustrated.
You might be leptin resistant or at least approaching it. I know I linked that Jack Kruse blog--if you haven't already you might want to check it out and try his pattern.
If you still lose weight as easily as ever when you are able to consume a caloric deficit, you are probably NOT leptin resistant.
I've cut out all sweets and haven't had diet soda or sugar-free products in nearly a month (this is huge for me as I was a huge aspartame fiend before) and it has made a HUGE difference. The sweet cravings have almost disappeared whereas before I would crave them even after weeks of healthy paleo eating, and I attribute it to not having anything sweet. I think even the diet sweet stuff really messes with your head and body's food reward mechanisms and makes you crave junk food. There is also research that suggests this may be the case.
Also, I think what Rosa said is really good advice: if you focus on food quality over time your body will start to naturally regulate consumption again and maintain a healthy body composition.
On October 13 2011 12:30 Dalguno wrote: How do I know if I'm leptin resistant?
You just decide you are and that it's the source of all your health problems. After going on a leptin-free diet for a while you'll then realize it wasn't.
On October 13 2011 12:30 Dalguno wrote: How do I know if I'm leptin resistant?
You just decide you are and that it's the source of all your health problems. After going on a leptin-free diet for a while you'll then realize it wasn't.
Everyone eats a "leptin-free diet." DUCY?
If you lose weight easily when you maintain a caloric deficit, you're almost certainly not leptin resistant. If you are significantly overweight, are constantly starving with any sort of caloric deficit and have an extremely difficult time losing weight, you may very well be.
I believe you're pretty young and not obsese, so you probably don't have anything to worry about. You did, however, say you have a really hard time with carb/sweet craving. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com has some really good stuff on food reward and how it can tie in with this. The discussion is mostly intellectual although he has had some more recent posts on what healthy eating might look like in practice. The take-home message is that if you are constantly craving high reward food you really have to eliminate your intake of them and give your body time to readjust. This also seems to include eliminating diet sweets like diet soda or other sugar-free products because your brain can't differentiate between these and actual high-reward foods.
A lot of this is pretty new in terms of theory and research so make of it what you will.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
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:
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 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?
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.
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?
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.
They're both pretty close. Butter is probably better for cooking, especially if you can find grass-fed butter. If you do cook with olive oil use a lower grade; not extra virgin.
The problem with both avocado and olive oils is they are high in unsaturated fatty acids, which can oxidize under heat. They also both have pretty poor O6:O3 ratios. The high saturated fat content (and thus high heat stability) of coconut oil and butter vs these mostly unsaturated oils is one reason why the former are preferred for cooking.
I would never use lower grade olive oil because it's usually refined junk (with more linoleic acid in it than extra virgin) and afaik, olive oil is pretty resistant to oxidative damage (reference).
Unsaturated fats have double bonds, which can be reactive. In particular, polyunsaturated fats are more reactive than monounsaturated (it's taking all my will power to not geek out on organic chemistry here, haha). When you heat something, nearly all chemical reactions take place with greater facility, including the oxidation of these fats to radical species that are harmful to the body. Also, the polyphenols in olive oil in particular--which are suspected to be one of the reasons for its health benefits--are easily destroyed even with moderate heating. So you both create potentially harmful reactive intermediates and destroy potentially helpful compounds by heating olive oil and other oils with high unsaturated fat content.
Extra virgin olive oils have more monounsaturated fats than lower grades, so they have a lower smoke point and are more susceptible to oxidative damage.
For these reasons you should also avoid keeping olive oil in a big jug open to the air and light. It's better in something opaque, and if you're super conscientious you could add a small amount of an antioxidant like astaxanthin to it.
Edit: like Twisted said, there is conflicting evidence on to what extent this oxidation does actually occur in practice.
On October 20 2011 08:36 Twisted wrote: 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:
cant watch the video atm but that blogpost is kinda annoying tbh ^^ dont get me wrong, he is pretty much right about everything he says, but i mean he just points out some obvious flaws, I could do the same for a lot of studies, like with the retarded pro-paleo milk vs meat protein study I mentioned. And to address one of the big points he makes in the article, there are also studies showing that increased meat intake correlates with increased mortality independently of socio-economic status.
That the media are sensationalist is nothing new and kinda irrelevant imo.
About coconut oil, didnt people attribute the huge obesity problem in malaysia partly to coconut oil? They mostly use coconut oil for their cooking, Of course that could be complete bs, malaysia is an interesting country though in terms of their nutritional problem. And I mean I assume theyve used coconut oil for a long time by now while the obesity problem has only risen in the last few decades
It's everyone's own choice to interpret any study as he would like, but I don't think you can point to a conclusive clinical study which proves that eating high quantities of red meat gives you a greater chance of developing cancer. Any study that does 'prove' it is purely observational where they drew up a hypothesis and sticked by it no matter what. Most of those observational studies don't think about socio-economic status or other implications that could cause a higher mortality rate.
It usually just comes down to people eating too much (refined) sugar and processed junk. The whole paleo solution is to cut your sugar and stop eating processed foods, but just eat food from natural sources. I don't think it's about excessive meat eating (obviously) so what we're discussing is pretty redundant in that fact . I think eating well means eating a variety of foods and keep it varied within the scope of the whole paleo theory. Some things to take away from the standard modern 'Western' diet is that you have to eat varied to get all the nutritional stuff that you need, which is obviously something that's true; also for paleo.
The point is that these studies argue that you should avoid red meat altogether and stick to white meat while red meat has a lot of nutritional value. If you cut it from your diet, you're probably not getting enough of something.
About milk, there are different opinions about that too. Some paleo guru's like L. Cordain say you should avoid dairy altogether, Mark Sisson is a bit less convinced (definitive guide to dairy).
About coconut oil, didnt people attribute the huge obesity problem in malaysia partly to coconut oil? They mostly use coconut oil for their cooking,
Yeah, that sounds absurd. It's probably caused by the fear of saturated fat which is very high in coconut oil so they just assumed that because they eat a lot of saturated fat that they're obese. They are probably obese because of a multitude of other factors which I can't say shit about because I don't know anything about that subject . It probably has to do with eating too much carbs/refined stuff anyway though. The native American Indians were some of the most healthy people around until they discovered Western food and Burger King and when they got involved into more of a Western society, their health started dropping rapidly. Maybe something like that happened with the Malaysians as well.
Polynesian/Malaysian/Micronesian culture has been using coconut for millenia, and now they have obesity problems in the last 50 or so years.
I'm going to assume that's because of the introduction of refined carbohydrates into their diet. Not something that they've been eating for a long time that hasn't given them problems before..
On October 22 2011 07:48 guN-viCe wrote: I found a really good write-up on the debate of beans. If anyone is interested: To Bean Or Not To Bean
Great article. I'll put it in OP.
Ahh glad to read this. I recently added batch cooked chili to my diet as an extra pre cooked meal option and started reading things about beans which had me a little concerned.
I'm surprised they're not considered 'paleo', but whatever, i'm leaving them in.
On October 23 2011 01:33 Twisted wrote: It's everyone's own choice to interpret any study as he would like, but I don't think you can point to a conclusive clinical study which proves that eating high quantities of red meat gives you a greater chance of developing cancer. Any study that does 'prove' it is purely observational where they drew up a hypothesis and sticked by it no matter what. Most of those observational studies don't think about socio-economic status or other implications that could cause a higher mortality rate.
I already mentioned a study which did include the socio-economic status. ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21971817 ) But that aside, doing perfect studies is not possible. You just cant take everything into account. If a study shows people who eat more meat have higher mortality / higher rate of cancer then I think it's worth mentioning (how well these studies are done obviously varies a lot). Does this prove that meat causes cancer? No, but it could show theres a problem with nutrition among a certain group of people and that their excess of meat intake is somehow part of that. I already mentioned that I think theres huge flaws with studies on nutrition, but to argue with that to support a different way of nutrition is absolutely pointless. (Esp. if that other side uses studies to support that people should stop eating stuff like bread and milk entirely.) To mention that they just draw a hypothesis and just stick to it no matter what - thats an exaggeration but bias is of course a problem, thats why doing blind experiments is a good thing, but im not sure how doable that is in studies on nutrition. But this is certainly also true for paleo-supporting studies, especially since all the studies i read so far were actually done by people already supporting paleo. I dont wanna repeat myself, but at least in none of the studies i read about meat and cancer/mortality they abused young children to prove a point, like they did in the one pro-paleo study.
It usually just comes down to people eating too much (refined) sugar and processed junk. The whole paleo solution is to cut your sugar and stop eating processed foods, but just eat food from natural sources. I don't think it's about excessive meat eating (obviously) so what we're discussing is pretty redundant in that fact . I think eating well means eating a variety of foods and keep it varied within the scope of the whole paleo theory.
yup I agree =) And yeah its pretty redundant, but I think this kinda started with me being unhappy with the bias of some of those paleo "gurus" (lol) If you claim that milk causes cancer then I think that at least the meat issue should be mentioned, if only to defend and support the paleo style.
On October 23 2011 05:26 eshlow wrote: Polynesian/Malaysian/Micronesian culture has been using coconut for millenia, and now they have obesity problems in the last 50 or so years.
ya thats pretty stupid then ^^ but i got that from news media, so no surprise.
I'm going to assume that's because of the introduction of refined carbohydrates into their diet. Not something that they've been eating for a long time that hasn't given them problems before..
I took a short look into it, complex carbohydrate supply in malaysia has been in decline, availability of fibre-rich food has not changed, increase in proportion of calories from fat, oils, sugars, meat, fish, egg. http://maso.org.my/spom/chap5.pdf but i kinda stopped caring what exactly the reasons are ^^
There are actually good nutritional studies but there is a difference between observational studies and clinical studies.
In clinical studies they usually have 2 or 3 groups of people and they test by changing one variable between the groups. Like in medicine research, one group of people is given a placebo and one group is given the actual medicine. Both groups are exactly the same and have some kind of chronic disease. If there is no noticable difference, the medicine fails and a study like that pretty much proves it.
In a nutritional study, you could test 3 groups of random people (of random socio-economic status etc., so big groups so weed out the variance) and change one variable. In this case, one group is all vegetarian and doesn't eat meat at all, the other eats only chicken and the third group could eat every meat available. You have to make sure with this that only the one variable is different so those groups have to be monitored very closely obviously and each group has to be told what to eat at all times and you have to make sure each group behaves exactly the same (as in exercise, bad habits etc.etc.). Maybe a bad example because this is really hard to do, but I hope it serves it purpose. In a study like this you could conclude some stuff at least. Maybe a better example is a study where one group is cooking with only olive oil, one is cooking with only vegetable oils, and a third group is only using ghee or butter. I think this has been done actually and the ones on vegetable oils were suffering massive mortality rates compared to the ghee and butter people.
I have a recipe for cauliflower rice in the recipes thread in our subforum as well! I do it a little differently than Twisted's link and I think it is delicious!
so instead of rice i'm going to have to eat cauliflower rice everyday? and it has very low calories. what should i add to my diet to get some good carbs?
Or just don't eat rice or a rice substitute? Sweet potatoes and any starchy tuber (regular potato, yucca root) are good sources of carbs, but Paleo by nature tends to be lower carb, higher fat than most diets.
On October 24 2011 09:06 Ingenol wrote: Or just don't eat rice or a rice substitute? Sweet potatoes and any starchy tuber (regular potato, yucca root) are good sources of carbs, but Paleo by nature tends to be lower carb, higher fat than most diets.
you mean to say i just eat the same way except by removing rice, sugars, fastfood etc.? i wonder if i could replace the rice with a piece of banana.
Hey guys, just started eating Paleo for about a week now. It's been going pretty well, I def have more energy and don't feel as lethargic as before. I'm about 5'10, starting weight was 220. I'm down about 6 lbs as of today and as far as I can tell it is not water weight since I am drinking water/green tea a ton. I'm currently doing P90 for exercise since I've had success with it in the past.
My question relating to Paelo: If I'm following the guidelines (eating 3-4 times a day, protein/veggies/few fats), should I be attempting to count calories or just eating until I'm full as suggested?
I've found myself at times during dinner (my 3rd meal for the day) that I'm not super hungry or anything so I tend to lower the portions on everything just a bit. I just wanted to make sure I'm not entering starvation mode but I'm worried I might be eating too much since I'm not "hungry."
Counting calories is one of the most ridiculous terms ever.
Just eat until you're full and eat the good stuff. Oh and since you're overweight, you're gonna eat more than normal people because there's probably some insuline resistance in ya. Need to fix that first until you start getting less hungry so eating paleo will fix that in no time. After that you'll lose weight in no-time.
On October 24 2011 09:06 Ingenol wrote: Or just don't eat rice or a rice substitute? Sweet potatoes and any starchy tuber (regular potato, yucca root) are good sources of carbs, but Paleo by nature tends to be lower carb, higher fat than most diets.
you mean to say i just eat the same way except by removing rice, sugars, fastfood etc.? i wonder if i could replace the rice with a piece of banana.
or
i remove the rice and just double the meat i eat?
Removing the rice is always good :p. You could double the meat but you should also increase your veggies. Veggies rule.
Oh and make sure you don't bake your stuff in vegetable oils but either coconut oil or butter.
On October 24 2011 07:27 Twisted wrote: There are actually good nutritional studies but there is a difference between observational studies and clinical studies.
In clinical studies they usually have 2 or 3 groups of people and they test by changing one variable between the groups. Like in medicine research, one group of people is given a placebo and one group is given the actual medicine. Both groups are exactly the same and have some kind of chronic disease. If there is no noticable difference, the medicine fails and a study like that pretty much proves it.
In a nutritional study, you could test 3 groups of random people (of random socio-economic status etc., so big groups so weed out the variance) and change one variable. In this case, one group is all vegetarian and doesn't eat meat at all, the other eats only chicken and the third group could eat every meat available. You have to make sure with this that only the one variable is different so those groups have to be monitored very closely obviously and each group has to be told what to eat at all times and you have to make sure each group behaves exactly the same (as in exercise, bad habits etc.etc.). Maybe a bad example because this is really hard to do, but I hope it serves it purpose. In a study like this you could conclude some stuff at least. Maybe a better example is a study where one group is cooking with only olive oil, one is cooking with only vegetable oils, and a third group is only using ghee or butter. I think this has been done actually and the ones on vegetable oils were suffering massive mortality rates compared to the ghee and butter people.
First of all, observational studies are a type of clinical study What you are talking about is the difference between treatment and observational studies.
And if you think theres no disadvantages to doing treatment studies over observational ones youre very wrong. Our topic here is nutrition. The effects of nutrition arent visible from one day to the other, usually it takes a long time, much longer than sth like effect of drugs. And since theres way more factors to health than just nutrition theres the huge variation factor, so you need a lot of people for all of the results to mean anything. The treatment studies on nutrition i read about had like 10 - 100 people. The epic study on cancer and nutrition, a cohort study, had 500 000 participants.. see the difference? ^^
If you get a treatment study where only one variable is different, it's triple blind, has many thousand participants and lasts for many years, then that's just excellent and probably better than any observational study ever could be. But in reality thats not gonna happen.
On October 24 2011 12:29 Cntchocula wrote: Hey guys, just started eating Paleo for about a week now. It's been going pretty well, I def have more energy and don't feel as lethargic as before. I'm about 5'10, starting weight was 220. I'm down about 6 lbs as of today and as far as I can tell it is not water weight since I am drinking water/green tea a ton. I'm currently doing P90 for exercise since I've had success with it in the past.
My question relating to Paelo: If I'm following the guidelines (eating 3-4 times a day, protein/veggies/few fats), should I be attempting to count calories or just eating until I'm full as suggested?
I've found myself at times during dinner (my 3rd meal for the day) that I'm not super hungry or anything so I tend to lower the portions on everything just a bit. I just wanted to make sure I'm not entering starvation mode but I'm worried I might be eating too much since I'm not "hungry."
Started Paleo a few days ago.. feeling really weak and my lifts have regressed.. I am still eating 3k+ calories a day.. Is this just sugar / carb withdraw? Kind of depressing
On October 26 2011 00:40 deepfield1 wrote: Started Paleo a few days ago.. feeling really weak and my lifts have regressed.. I am still eating 3k+ calories a day.. Is this just sugar / carb withdraw? Kind of depressing
You'll have to detail us what you are eating all day for us to evaluate if there are any problems.
Although it will take a few weeks for your body to adapt from running on carbs to running on fat, but you shouldn't be feeling lethargic at all, normally it's the opposite.
Well almost a week on paleo and I am feeling ALOT better. I was able to progress on my lifts last night too. I was reading other Paleo boards and the exhaustion I was feeling sounds normal for many people.
My meals over the past week have looked something like this:
Breakfast - 3 egg omelet with grilled chicken, onions + bell peppers /w a piece of fruit (apple, pear, or grapefruit)
Lunch - I've been either doing 2x grilled chicken breasts with a large helping of steamed veggies, or a big salad (romaine, grilled chicken, tons of veggies)
Dinner - large steak or fish filet, steamed veggies
Not amongst them are hazel-nuts. Is there something wrong with hazels or are they just not common in the US? I'm just asking 'cause they are my favourite nuts and I want to know whether or not they are detrimental to the paleo diet.
I find it funny that people that are on "paleo" will shy away from grains like the pest cus they contain high amounts of phytic acid (storage form for phosphorus in plants in general) and other types of "toxins", but NUTS are okay, disregard that many nuts contain the "toxin" pytic acid in higher amounts than whole grains and brown rice.
the paleo diet is probably one of the stupidest diets that has gone kind of "mainstream".
Brb you lose weight on the paleo cus you eat quality food and cut the evil carbs, but disregard the laws of thermodynamics, we only had that sh.t since the 1850s.
you are probably losing weight cus of the lack of calories in your diet, now that you aint stuffing your face with sugar or other carbohydrate rich foods. and then you conclude, WELL! I cut my carbs and now am losing weight, carbs are evil and make you fat!
It is also the same if you try to gain weight (lol good luck seeing gains on paleo, 4k+ cals from protein and fat? enjoy your f.cked up nitrogen balance lol).
Many bodybuilders and powerlifters preach that carbs are probably the most important macro nuitrient, for the increase in energy which would lead to increase in muscle pumps that will help stretch your muscle fascias to grow faster, and obviously the extra energy and constantly replinished muscles will give you stronger workouts and better recovery.
I could go on and on but instead I'll just leave this here:
I don't follow paleo but I see you didn't read the OP since paleo isn't a specificaly low/high carb diet, it can be whatever you need, obviously you wouldn't go low carb during a bulk, lol.
Now I'll wait for eshlow's response, since I don't know much about paleo . /popcorn ^_^
This is awesome. I've recently found out I'm gluten intolerant (and not so recently lactose intolerant) so I've been basically following this kind of diet, with potatoes for carbs and occasionally rice for carbs. One thing I've noticed just from avoiding fast food like the plague is that I prefer a lot less salt, pepper, and sugar on my foods than my friends and family. Now I actually prefer the more flavorful fruits like oranges, apples, etc for dessert over candy or cake/cookies.
I do however eat (gluten free) corn flakes for breakfast just about every day just because it's a lot quicker than making eggs every day.
I already wrote in the OP analysis that hunter gather populations don't usually dip below about 20% carbohydrates and thus are not actually on low carbohydrate diets. Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day.
It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
The only time low carbohydates are recommended is if a person has metabolic issues or cardiovascular disease or neurodegenerative disorders where low carbohydrate actually improves metabolism to reverse some of these disease processes.
Hey Guys I've been interested in the paleo lifestyle for quite a long time. Im 170cm and 84 kg but actually quite fit, like I jog 1 hour no problem and squat 100kg but I really want to lose some weight because there's lots of body fat which prevents me from getting lean. The problem has been my eating habits, because I somehow never get a real consistency in my diet. Last year I was already down to 70 kg but during my lazy year I got it all back and recently ( 3-4) month I really started working out again ( 6 times a week) and decided to take a healthier approach in my diet and lifestyle because getting to 70 kg last year was a lot of fasting.
One of the more proficient sources concerning the paleo diet seems to be rob wolf. I bought his ebook on amazon yesterday for like 8 € and started reading a bit and it's really interesting. Has anyone purchased his 30 day transformation thingy for 25$ and knows if it's worth it?
And I might be able to abandon bread and pasta/noodles but since Im asian there's no way I can completly avoid (white) rice ^^ because we're having it at least 3-4 times a week. Is that actually a huge problem? Im just eating a small bowl for dinner then anyway.
On November 08 2011 03:18 AsnSensation wrote: Hey Guys I've been interested in the paleo lifestyle for quite a long time. Im 170cm and 84 kg but actually quite fit, like I jog 1 hour no problem and squat 100kg but I really want to lose some weight because there's lots of body fat which prevents me from getting lean. The problem has been my eating habits, because I somehow never get a real consistency in my diet. Last year I was already down to 70 kg but during my lazy year I got it all back and recently ( 3-4) month I really started working out again ( 6 times a week) and decided to take a healthier approach in my diet and lifestyle because getting to 70 kg last year was a lot of fasting.
One of the more proficient sources concerning the paleo diet seems to be rob wolf. I bought his ebook on amazon yesterday for like 8 € and started reading a bit and it's really interesting. Has anyone purchased his 30 day transformation thingy for 25$ and knows if it's worth it?
And I might be able to abandon bread and pasta/noodles but since Im asian there's no way I can completly avoid (white) rice ^^ because we're having it at least 3-4 times a week. Is that actually a huge problem? Im just eating a small bowl for dinner then anyway.
thx in advance
I am asian too and I ate a bowl of rice almost every day for most of my life. doesnt mean you have to keep doing it. just cook more vegetables and also add less soy sauce or other sauce to your food so you dont need something like rice to soak it up.
On November 08 2011 03:18 AsnSensation wrote: Hey Guys I've been interested in the paleo lifestyle for quite a long time. Im 170cm and 84 kg but actually quite fit, like I jog 1 hour no problem and squat 100kg but I really want to lose some weight because there's lots of body fat which prevents me from getting lean. The problem has been my eating habits, because I somehow never get a real consistency in my diet. Last year I was already down to 70 kg but during my lazy year I got it all back and recently ( 3-4) month I really started working out again ( 6 times a week) and decided to take a healthier approach in my diet and lifestyle because getting to 70 kg last year was a lot of fasting.
One of the more proficient sources concerning the paleo diet seems to be rob wolf. I bought his ebook on amazon yesterday for like 8 € and started reading a bit and it's really interesting. Has anyone purchased his 30 day transformation thingy for 25$ and knows if it's worth it?
And I might be able to abandon bread and pasta/noodles but since Im asian there's no way I can completly avoid (white) rice ^^ because we're having it at least 3-4 times a week. Is that actually a huge problem? Im just eating a small bowl for dinner then anyway.
thx in advance
are you living by yourself or with your family?
I never eat grains/rice when I'm living by myself. When I was living with my family, I occasionally, symbolically, eat a little bit of rice to appease my parents.
An added bonus to not eating rice is that, you will learn to put less salt/soy sauce into your dishes
so you cut up colliflower into little pieces, then stick it in the micro for an indeterminate amount of time, and it comes out nice?
i am still confused about cooking oil. i use extra virgin (in a darkened bottle) but will happily switch to anything else like butter, but i cant tell if butter in my store is any good... there are lots here http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/search/default.aspx?searchBox=butter&N=4294796066 and im using this one atm coz of the fancy packaging and not because i have any clue (also it was on offer)
there is a coconut oil bottle in my store but the packaging doesnt say much and i think i read on the wiki that if its "processed" coconut oil then its shit. this bottle is SUPER cheap so i wouldnt hold my breath about it (tho no1 uses it in this country probably so maaaaaybe thats why its cheap).
what else... oh yeah what are examples of high-fat foods that i can buy ? i can only think of milk/dairy and minced beef (ugh). the "real" meat i buy always has fat trimmed off (chicken, turkey, loin steaks)
my diet atm is around..
6 scrambled eggs + bacon + chopped tinned tomato 6 scrambled eggs + chopped tinned tomato scrambled egg + cheese green apples (so expensive ffs) milk (gonna stop this or cut down a lot coz i think its fuckin with me) baked potato (microwaved, skin removed after) + tinned fish (pilchards, tuna, mackeral, salmon) + butter baked potato (microwaved, skin removed after) + tinned fish (pilchards, tuna, mackeral, salmon) + butter + sweetcorn pork loin / turkey breast / chicken breast + tinned carrots OR hmm not sure been putting them in shitty burger buns with ketchup lately extra virgin olive oil (will switch to butter or that coconut oil if recommended) water energy drink once a week or so instead of weed/alcohol chopped lettuce + chopped fresh tomatoes + pre-grated cheese (bad i know) + french dressing
as you can see my food variety is really shit. i bought brussel sprouts coz they were cheap but burnt them in the microwave
im kinda thinking about making a thread called "20-Minute Meals in a Simple Format" where we can all contribute and its easy to read.....
ooh yeah i bought a sweet potato (theyre big!) but keep fucking forgetting its up there hiding next to the others spinach is really nice i had it the other day so i should get that yeah asparagus i will try i dont think ive ever had it broccoli i will try again lol coliflower i will try coz i like it i just gotta keep an eye on how much these things cost (i cant buy peppers really coz theyre fuckin expensive)
is it possible to cut up things like colliflower, brocolli, spinage and asparagus when you cut up your chicken breast and then just lump them all into a pan and fry them together (or in a similar way)? i thought you had to boil veg like that
i just used that coconut oil i have to make fried chips (potato) + fried onion. holy shit fried chips + onion is nice, havent done it before for myself :D i thought the potato was gonna all lump together and get stuck to each other but it ended up well. problem is getting the solid coconut oil out of the glass bottle, i ran it under a boiling hot tap several times and got it to trickle out a bit (without shattering into my eyes). cant be much nutrition in this , its all a bit Crispy lol
Depending on how you like your broccoli (I like them completely cooked) broccoli might take a while. Boiling them ahead of time before stir-frying is certainly an option, but I prefer to cook it in a pan. Slow cooked broccoli is amazing. it's basically just bacon, garlic and broccoli cooked over low-med heat for 40 minutes.
Asparagus can be stir-fried fairly easily, all you have to do is slice them before tossing them into the pan, goes well with pork or sausages.
On November 28 2011 01:20 FFGenerations wrote: what else... oh yeah what are examples of high-fat foods that i can buy ? i can only think of milk/dairy and minced beef (ugh). the "real" meat i buy always has fat trimmed off (chicken, turkey, loin steaks)
Avocados. If you don't like the flavor, try adding a bit of salt. (They take forever to ripen when it's cold though =/)
Kerrygold Pure Irish Butter is amazing, you can get it at Trader Joe's if there's one in your area. Put it on veggies, in scambled eggs (like this, minus the extra stuff), etc. Not strictly paleo, but should be fine unless you're super sensitive to dairy.
Use plenty of olive oil on salads (anyone have brand recommendations?)
Salmon is good and fatty, kinda expensive though.
For veggies, I just buy big ass bags of frozen stuff and steam a big batch at a time. For stir fries I just steam them a bit less, then add them in near the end.
im kinda thinking about making a thread called "20-Minute Meals in a Simple Format" where we can all contribute and its easy to read.....
Yeah I'd like to see a Paleo/Primal-specific quick recipe thread.
On November 28 2011 02:31 FFGenerations wrote: edit: ew i definately need to get some sweet potato recipes lol, its pretty fucking disgusting
Wash em, poke holes in em, and stick em in the oven (on foil, it'll be messy) @ 375ish for 60-75 minutes, depending on the size, then eat with butter. Very tasty.
On November 28 2011 02:28 Cambium wrote: Slow cooked broccoli is amazing. it's basically just bacon, garlic and broccoli cooked over low-med heat for 40 minutes.
Just a random paleo tip: If you're reasonably good with people, you might be able to ask a restaurant owner to order a little extra and pay for that. Irish Angus grass fed beef for 6.50/kilo, yes please!
You can get some really great stuff/leftovers for an absolute steal.
Unable to use my oven because my roommates turned on the oven after we hid our coffee maker in there during one of our parties T_T Back to nuking my sweet potatoes.
Is shredding potatoes in butter/beef grease to make hashbrowns a healthy way to eat them?
On November 28 2011 10:25 decafchicken wrote: Unable to use my oven because my roommates turned on the oven after we hid our coffee maker in there during one of our parties T_T Back to nuking my sweet potatoes.
Is shredding potatoes in butter/beef grease to make hashbrowns a healthy way to eat them?
purecarnagge pick up a protein shake too if you can afford it, its very good for cooking nubs (simple, super-fast to prepare, dont have to use it if you dont need it - doesnt go off! lol) (read the back and compare different brands to make sure you get one with high protein content rather than a mass builder or wtvr, and dont get confused/tricked by the way they might varyingly display it (eg 30g per serving where 1 serving = 10 scoops) dont get put off if your shake tastes fuckin disgusting either, the second time i bought it (different brand) it tasted wey different)
Am I reading it wrong or does the OP say that grains are bad and meats are good?
Are we losing our minds?
The kind of foods that we are supposed to eat are determined by our teeth composition and our intestinal tract. Like, a rabbit eats vegetables because it has the teeth for it. A wolf (dog) eats meat because they have pointy molars, made for tearing meat.
We humans have more flat molars than anything else, they are not for tearing meat, but for crushing cereals. Furthermore, the intestines of animals which eat lots of meat are short, and ours is long.
Another clue is the cholesterol levels. A dog can eat a pound of butter every day for months and have no significant cholesterol issues. The same cannot be said for humans. That shows you that they are prepared to eat foods high in cholesterol, and we are not.
And another thing, putting people with health problems (like celiacs) as an example to say that this or that food is bad, is kind of silly. It is bad for them, because they have a disease.....not the other way around.
The problem with a diet low on grains and high on meats/eggs/vegetables, is that humans need more carbohydrates than they need protein. If you eat lots of protein and few carbs, your body will inevitably transform some of those proteins in energy through a longer and more complex mechanism than just giving carbs to it. You will feel drained and heavy. Try it for a week and you will see for yourself.
On November 30 2011 04:17 FungalLove wrote: Am I reading it wrong or does the OP say that grains are bad and meats are good?
Are we losing our minds?
The kind of foods that we are supposed to eat are determined by our teeth composition and our intestinal tract. Like, a rabbit eats vegetables because it has the teeth for it. A wolf (dog) eats meat because they have pointy molars, made for tearing meat.
We humans have more flat molars than anything else, they are not for tearing meat, but for crushing cereals. Furthermore, the intestines of animals which eat lots of meat are short, and ours is long.
Another clue is the cholesterol levels. A dog can eat a pound of butter every day for months and have no significant cholesterol issues. The same cannot be said for humans. That shows you that they are prepared to eat foods high in cholesterol, and we are not.
And another thing, putting people with health problems (like celiacs) as an example to say that this or that food is bad, is kind of silly. It is bad for them, because they have a disease.....not the other way around.
The problem with a diet low on grains and high on meats/eggs/vegetables, is that humans need more carbohydrates than they need protein. If you eat lots of protein and few carbs, your body will inevitably transform some of those proteins in energy through a longer and more complex mechanism than just giving carbs to it. You will feel drained and heavy. Try it for a week and you will see for yourself.
Happy eating!
Losing our minds? No.
Our teeth are varied for an omnivorous diet. I'm not sure how you can ignore incisors, canines, and premolars which are more made for chewing meats. We have very few molars compared to the above categories.
Cholesterol levels don't affect rates of cardiovascular disease. And, by the way, did you know that the only animals that get atherosclerosis are vegetarian animals? Hmmm. It's not because of eating meats.
Lots of people have gluten insensitivity, not just celiacs.
Vegetables, fruits, potatoes, etc are more than enough carbohydrates.
You pretty much have no good arguments to offer, so I'll leave it at that.
On November 30 2011 04:17 FungalLove wrote: Am I reading it wrong or does the OP say that grains are bad and meats are good?
Are we losing our minds?
The kind of foods that we are supposed to eat are determined by our teeth composition and our intestinal tract. Like, a rabbit eats vegetables because it has the teeth for it. A wolf (dog) eats meat because they have pointy molars, made for tearing meat.
We humans have more flat molars than anything else, they are not for tearing meat, but for crushing cereals. Furthermore, the intestines of animals which eat lots of meat are short, and ours is long.
Another clue is the cholesterol levels. A dog can eat a pound of butter every day for months and have no significant cholesterol issues. The same cannot be said for humans. That shows you that they are prepared to eat foods high in cholesterol, and we are not.
And another thing, putting people with health problems (like celiacs) as an example to say that this or that food is bad, is kind of silly. It is bad for them, because they have a disease.....not the other way around.
The problem with a diet low on grains and high on meats/eggs/vegetables, is that humans need more carbohydrates than they need protein. If you eat lots of protein and few carbs, your body will inevitably transform some of those proteins in energy through a longer and more complex mechanism than just giving carbs to it. You will feel drained and heavy. Try it for a week and you will see for yourself.
Happy eating!
Ugh. Yet another post by somebody who has no understanding of paleo. This all sounds like vegetarian/vegan propaganda honestly, and it's all so wrong that I don't even know where to start.
How do deli meats and stuff fit into the diet? Are they not apart of it? Its not everyday that you can make chicken breast... (its cold here and my grill takes forever to light in the winter... ). I'm a pretty big turkey guy i think its a nice healthy meat to eat... not sure on roast beef or the chicken breast stuff... just thought i would ask though.
On November 30 2011 04:17 FungalLove wrote: Am I reading it wrong or does the OP say that grains are bad and meats are good?
Are we losing our minds?
The kind of foods that we are supposed to eat are determined by our teeth composition and our intestinal tract.
...
The problem with a diet low on grains and high on meats/eggs/vegetables, is that humans need more carbohydrates than they need protein. If you eat lots of protein and few carbs, your body will inevitably transform some of those proteins in energy through a longer and more complex mechanism than just giving carbs to it. You will feel drained and heavy. Try it for a week and you will see for yourself.
Happy eating!
I believe one of robb wolfs reasons for paleo is that grains are bad for your digestional tract.
you will feel drained and heavy? Ive been on paleo for two months. one of those months i started working out for the first time in my life doing weight lifting and running more distances than i ever have. I feel amazing and energized. my appetite is regular but not overbearing. so yea ive tried it for a week and Ive seen for myself.
On December 01 2011 10:15 purecarnagge wrote: How do deli meats and stuff fit into the diet? Are they not apart of it? Its not everyday that you can make chicken breast... (its cold here and my grill takes forever to light in the winter... ). I'm a pretty big turkey guy i think its a nice healthy meat to eat... not sure on roast beef or the chicken breast stuff... just thought i would ask though.
Deli meats (from package) aren't that good because they're processed.
Over the counter is better... but it's obv way better if you can get them all fresh.
@eshlow, any tips for allergies? I'm allergic to dust, cats, and a little bit to pollen.
When I first started on the paleo diet, they actually improved significantly, and barely bothered me all last spring. Since then, they have not only come back but have gotten MUCH worse than they ever were before. I do a better job cleaning my room and washing my sheets than i have ever done before (because I'm living alone) but other than that I can't think of any significant lifestyle changes that would be making this a problem.
Something I should see my doctor about? they're bad enough that they're bothering me in my daily life, and I might need some type of medication... which I had hoped to avoid.
On December 01 2011 10:15 purecarnagge wrote: How do deli meats and stuff fit into the diet? Are they not apart of it? Its not everyday that you can make chicken breast... (its cold here and my grill takes forever to light in the winter... ). I'm a pretty big turkey guy i think its a nice healthy meat to eat... not sure on roast beef or the chicken breast stuff... just thought i would ask though.
Deli meats (from package) aren't that good because they're processed.
Over the counter is better... but it's obv way better if you can get them all fresh.
I'd be skeptical of any diets that disregard wheat's/grains as they have been proven to lower the risk of cardio vascular disease and have health benefits attributed to them. The guy a few posts up that said that cholesterol levels don't attribute to heart disease is laughable. I'd listen to my doctor or any doctor before I'd listen to a random forum user and I'd hope that most people would too.
On December 05 2011 10:10 Sovern wrote: I'd be skeptical of any diets that disregard wheat's/grains as they have been proven to lower the risk of cardio vascular disease and have health benefits attributed to them. The guy a few posts up that said that cholesterol levels don't attribute to heart disease is laughable. I'd listen to my doctor or any doctor before I'd listen to a random forum user and I'd hope that most people would too.
On December 05 2011 10:10 Sovern wrote: I'd be skeptical of any diets that disregard wheat's/grains as they have been proven to lower the risk of cardio vascular disease and have health benefits attributed to them. The guy a few posts up that said that cholesterol levels don't attribute to heart disease is laughable. I'd listen to my doctor or any doctor before I'd listen to a random forum user and I'd hope that most people would too.
Yawn. Increase dietary cholesterol, especially from great sources like eggs, does not increase risk of CVD. Rather, it is either neutral or positive on improving CVD risk factors.
On December 01 2011 13:22 phyre112 wrote: @eshlow, any tips for allergies? I'm allergic to dust, cats, and a little bit to pollen.
When I first started on the paleo diet, they actually improved significantly, and barely bothered me all last spring. Since then, they have not only come back but have gotten MUCH worse than they ever were before. I do a better job cleaning my room and washing my sheets than i have ever done before (because I'm living alone) but other than that I can't think of any significant lifestyle changes that would be making this a problem.
Something I should see my doctor about? they're bad enough that they're bothering me in my daily life, and I might need some type of medication... which I had hoped to avoid.
Are you taking vitamin D?
there's some weird stuff with vitamin D where if you are hypersensitive or hyposensitive it can mess around with your immune system and make it less or more reactive. See if cutting that or any other supplements out helps?
On December 01 2011 13:22 phyre112 wrote: @eshlow, any tips for allergies? I'm allergic to dust, cats, and a little bit to pollen.
When I first started on the paleo diet, they actually improved significantly, and barely bothered me all last spring. Since then, they have not only come back but have gotten MUCH worse than they ever were before. I do a better job cleaning my room and washing my sheets than i have ever done before (because I'm living alone) but other than that I can't think of any significant lifestyle changes that would be making this a problem.
Something I should see my doctor about? they're bad enough that they're bothering me in my daily life, and I might need some type of medication... which I had hoped to avoid.
Are you taking vitamin D?
there's some weird stuff with vitamin D where if you are hypersensitive or hyposensitive it can mess around with your immune system and make it less or more reactive. See if cutting that or any other supplements out helps?
Only supplements I've been taking are Vit D, Fish Oil, and creatine - I just ran out of fish oil and creatine and I don't get any more until christmas, so I suppose I'll take the next three weeks with no supplements whatsoever and see if it makes a change.
On December 05 2011 10:10 Sovern wrote: I'd be skeptical of any diets that disregard wheat's/grains as they have been proven to lower the risk of cardio vascular disease and have health benefits attributed to them. The guy a few posts up that said that cholesterol levels don't attribute to heart disease is laughable. I'd listen to my doctor or any doctor before I'd listen to a random forum user and I'd hope that most people would too.
You would rather listen to a professional sales agent than someone who receives no benefit from your purchase? Idc. Your choice.
On December 01 2011 13:22 phyre112 wrote: @eshlow, any tips for allergies? I'm allergic to dust, cats, and a little bit to pollen.
When I first started on the paleo diet, they actually improved significantly, and barely bothered me all last spring. Since then, they have not only come back but have gotten MUCH worse than they ever were before. I do a better job cleaning my room and washing my sheets than i have ever done before (because I'm living alone) but other than that I can't think of any significant lifestyle changes that would be making this a problem.
Something I should see my doctor about? they're bad enough that they're bothering me in my daily life, and I might need some type of medication... which I had hoped to avoid.
Are you taking vitamin D?
there's some weird stuff with vitamin D where if you are hypersensitive or hyposensitive it can mess around with your immune system and make it less or more reactive. See if cutting that or any other supplements out helps?
Only supplements I've been taking are Vit D, Fish Oil, and creatine - I just ran out of fish oil and creatine and I don't get any more until christmas, so I suppose I'll take the next three weeks with no supplements whatsoever and see if it makes a change.
Hopefully that works.
Although better cleaning can sometimes cause more enhanced allergy issues (especially with kids). I wouldn't be so sure that it can't happen to adults too. It's possible to be too clean.
been thinking about trying this out, have a question about eggs tho. Is it really ok to be eating eggs everyday? you always hear from the media about how bad eggs are for chlorestrol, is this a crock of shit ??? right now i do 3 scrambled eggs + some shredded cheese mixed in, fills me up just fine, never hungry till lunch.
Any thoughts on the Slow-Carb (4-hour body diet)? Seems similar except he promotes beans and eating whatever you want once a week. Been doing it for a month now, can't say I feel too different. The diet is presented in a way to lose fat but its supposed to be sustainable and better for you. I guess my main question for the knowledgable people out there is what you think of the "cheat day" where you eat grains/sugars.
On December 08 2011 01:41 Sackings wrote: been thinking about trying this out, have a question about eggs tho. Is it really ok to be eating eggs everyday? you always hear from the media about how bad eggs are for chlorestrol, is this a crock of shit ??? right now i do 3 scrambled eggs + some shredded cheese mixed in, fills me up just fine, never hungry till lunch.
Read the 10+ studies I posted on the other page about cholesterol.
Eggs are great. I try to eat at least 3 a day, and I know some of my friends eat up to 6-12 a day. We all have great blood panels.
On December 08 2011 02:10 mordek wrote: Any thoughts on the Slow-Carb (4-hour body diet)? Seems similar except he promotes beans and eating whatever you want once a week. Been doing it for a month now, can't say I feel too different. The diet is presented in a way to lose fat but its supposed to be sustainable and better for you. I guess my main question for the knowledgable people out there is what you think of the "cheat day" where you eat grains/sugars.
Some people need the cheat day. If you need the cheat day then cheat.
I would, however, change the cheat day to cheat meals... 3 a week... then cut back to 2,.. then 1.
But obviously what is best is staying on the bandwagon. It's true that changing most of the stuff is most of the results, but you can notice small differences over the good stuff when you go strict.
Well, I feel my post got misunderstood. And now you pissed me off for real with your "I am better than you because I follow a new age diet" posts.
It wasn't my intention to do any "vegan/vegetarian" propaganda. I have nothing against eating meats, or eggs. In fact I do so almost every day.
My problem is this: "Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy."
That is just plain stupid.
Paleo diet? Wtf, we are not in the paleolithic anymore people. If you had to kill a cow every time you wanted a stake I'm pretty sure you wouldn't eat that much stake. Same goes for birds. Go kill a chicken every time you want a chicken wing.
About grains: I mean, chinese people for example, they have been eating rice with their meals for thousands of years, and I don't see any study saying that their intestinal tract is fu**ed up. And they don't have any history of diabetes, alzheimer or any other disease named in the opening post.
MOREOVER:
I hadn't checked on the internet about this diet, but now that I did, you really can't expect me to take it seriously:
First of all, the freaking diet has a TM next to it, with its own flashy website. Meaning someone is making a huge load of money from writing shit about this. They even have books and DVDs showing you how to eat a freaking egg.
Second: look at this guy's face. This is the doctor that is supposedly giving us this wonderful diet? WTF, if I end up looking like him, I don't want anything to do with this diet. He simply looks like a retarded person, or a serial killer. There is no intelligence whatsoever behind his eyes. (If you cannot see this, maybe it's because you already look like him)
(YES I took the liberty of screenshooting the website to show you his expression).
Third: there are testimonials on the website? Like...really? Testimonials? One would think that in this age people would have already learned that anything with "testimonials" is just plain bullshit.
This just looks to me as bullshit as Trascendental Meditation, which also has a freaking TM next to it, and supposedly makes you fly after 3 sessions or something. You want to learn how to meditate? Go and read any hindu text that has a thousand years or more, and you will learn how to meditate.
You want to learn how to eat properly? Read anything written a thousand years ago, it probably still applies, and you can be sure that they don't want to sell you anything.
Civilizations like the chinese didn't thrive for being ignorant. They had (still have but now they are almost as stupid as us westerners) knowledge of the workings of the body that doctors today are still trying to understand. And they eat freaking rice every freaking day!!
Second: look at this guy's face. This is the doctor that is supposedly giving us this wonderful diet? WTF, if I end up looking like him, I don't want anything to do with this diet. He simply looks like a retarded person, or a serial killer. There is no intelligence whatsoever behind his eyes. (If you cannot see this, maybe it's because you already look like him)
Didn't take vit D over thanksgiving, and now it's been a few days at school, probably twi weeks between them. Allergies are much better, but it might just be the air getting colder and wetter (~ freezing).
Goddamn vitamin D s always fucking with me, ever since I was little.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism Full of people who are normal in his opinion then. High body fat and 0 muscle except for 1 athelete who failed drug test 3 times.
Also I don't know where you get that information that chinese don't have any reports of alzheimer or diabetes. It looks like a huge troll post and I probably fell for it.
On December 08 2011 03:12 FungalLove wrote: Well, I feel my post got misunderstood. And now you pissed me off for real with your "I am better than you because I follow a new age diet" posts.
It wasn't my intention to do any "vegan/vegetarian" propaganda. I have nothing against eating meats, or eggs. In fact I do so almost every day.
My problem is this: "Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy."
That is just plain stupid.
Paleo diet? Wtf, we are not in the paleolithic anymore people. Red Herring, Straw man If you had to kill a cow every time you wanted a stake I'm pretty sure you wouldn't eat that much stake. Red Herring Same goes for birds. Go kill a chicken every time you want a chicken wing. Red Herring
About grains: I mean, chinese people for example, they have been eating rice with their meals for thousands of years, and I don't see any study saying that their intestinal tract is fu**ed up. And they don't have any history of diabetes, alzheimer or any other disease named in the opening post. Ignoring a common cause, Appeal to common practice, Sorry but anthropology disagrees with you
MOREOVER:
I hadn't checked on the internet about this diet, but now that I did, you really can't expect me to take it seriously:
First of all, the freaking diet has a TM next to it,Red Herring with its own flashy website. Red Herring Meaning someone is making a huge load of money from writing shit about this. Red Herring They even have books and DVDs showing you how to eat a freaking egg. Red Herring
Second: look at this guy's face. This is the doctor that is supposedly giving us this wonderful diet? WTF, if I end up looking like him, I don't want anything to do with this diet. He simply looks like a retarded person, or a serial killer. There is no intelligence whatsoever behind his eyes. (If you cannot see this, maybe it's because you already look like him) Ad Hominem, Personal Attack
(YES I took the liberty of screenshooting the website to show you his expression).
Third: there are testimonials on the website? Like...really? Testimonials? One would think that in this age people would have already learned that anything with "testimonials" is just plain bullshit. Guilt by association
This just looks to me as bullshit as Trascendental Meditation, which also has a freaking TM next to it, and supposedly makes you fly after 3 sessions or something. You want to learn how to meditate? Go and read any hindu text that has a thousand years or more, and you will learn how to meditate. Red Herring
You want to learn how to eat properly? Read anything written a thousand years ago, it probably still applies, and you can be sure that they don't want to sell you anything. Appeal to Tradition
Civilizations like the chinese didn't thrive for being ignorant. They had (still have but now they are almost as stupid as us westerners) knowledge of the workings of the body that doctors today are still trying to understand. And they eat freaking rice every freaking day!! Ignoring a common cause, appeal to common practice, Sorry but anthropology disagrees with you
<3
Now you know why I can't take you seriously.
You offer no research. And your post is full of logical fallacies.
Also, I don't really have much against rice personally as it is one of a safer forms of starch. However, your post is a joke.
I thought it was a valid argument. He clearly supported his claims with concrete evidence.
But seriously, I don't understand the point he's trying to make. It's common sense that you are indeed eating healthier with paleo as you pack your stomach with foods high in nutritional value whereas rice and bread have little nutritional value per mass (or however you say it). And eshlow clearly advises everyone that they can always make minor adjustments to the diet, such as adding milk.
On December 08 2011 03:46 Orpheos wrote: lol eshlow's post. Now Im imagining some AI scanner that can go through internet forums and footnote arguments with fallacies.
lol, both you and I thought the same thing when we saw the post.
The funny thing is, actually, that I used to do that a lot when i was arguing on the Internet. But I got wise and stopped doing that because it takes a lot of time to do. Now I usually just don't care.
But people arguing like this is totally ridiculous and people fall for it.
If you offer me no counter research your post is pretty much full of crap.
lol @ footnotes. I can always tell I'm speaking to an ignorant person when they try to refute every little sentence in an argument. It is very childish indeed. You are supposed to read it with a sense of wholeness and common sense, both of which you do not have. You rather believe the words of a salesman with a degree than the words of thousands of years of experience of the entire human race.
The dude is trying to sell, mate.
He puts himself behind a phd and can say whatever he wants because of it. Forgive me for using my common sense/sense of tradition, but anything that has been working for thousands of years will not get debunked by some book selling prick with a website.
And about the "studies" that you so proudly name, well, I can offer the example of doctor Freeman. (RED HERRING) He performed hundreds of lobotomies back in the 40's and 50's. Yeah, back then they also had "studies" that "proved" that lobotomy was a great practice, and they also had "testimonials" from lobotomized people saying how great it was. To this day doctors hold him as a great researcher, blablablabla..... In reality the man was a butcher who ruined hundreds of lives experimenting with the human brain.
Anyone can write an essay saying that grains are shit or whatever and then put it on the internet. If it was actually true then the whole scientific community would agree and we would have heard about it already. But no, you only hear it on some obscure circles AND on Mr. PhD's website.
Grow up Spock, all that logic will get you nowhere in the real world. Learn to use your common sense or you will get pulled by anything that "sounds" logical.
On December 08 2011 04:24 FungalLove wrote: The dude is trying to sell, mate.
I don't really care if you think the paleo diet is retarded or anything like that, you're entitled to that opinion, but this sentence is pretty damn stupid. You know, the exact reason the main nutrition/health company (dunno name since I'm swedish) hasn't banned sugar and things like that is because they have sugar in fucking everything so they make ridiculous amounts of money. There's grains in almost everything aswell so the food companies would lose vast amounts of money if they said grains is bad for you. So guess what, they do everything in their power to make it seem like it isn't.
On December 08 2011 04:24 FungalLove wrote: If it was actually true then the whole scientific community would agree and we would have heard about it already.
On December 08 2011 04:24 FungalLove wrote: Grow up Spock, all that logic will get you nowhere in the real world. Learn to use your common sense or you will get pulled by anything that "sounds" logical.
Steamer bags of Broccoli is fine right? I was wondering if there was any difference in nutritional value. The shopping list states just a few lbs of it...
On December 20 2011 06:05 purecarnagge wrote: Steamer bags of Broccoli is fine right? I was wondering if there was any difference in nutritional value. The shopping list states just a few lbs of it...
I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. + Show Spoiler +
After eating like this for a while and Atkins in the past (also high in egg intake) I got myself intolerant to eggs now. Never had a problem with them in the past, but can't handle them anymore. If they come in a dish prepared from the oven it seems less bad but oh my if i eat a medium boiled egg (my favourite!) hell breaks loose.
On December 21 2011 20:53 Liquid`Meat wrote: After eating like this for a while and Atkins in the past (also high in egg intake) I got myself intolerant to eggs now. Never had a problem with them in the past, but can't handle them anymore. If they come in a dish prepared from the oven it seems less bad but oh my if i eat a medium boiled egg (my favourite!) hell breaks loose.
That sucks. Stay off them for a while, sometimes allergies are transient.
But stuff like this does happen which is kinda weird with the hyperactive immune system
After stuffing myself with bad carbs for 3 weeks back to eating awesome food. Yay. I really wouldn't have thought it but I can't stand pasta anymore, at all. And I used to eat nothing but in Uni.
On January 10 2012 10:15 zatic wrote: After stuffing myself with bad carbs for 3 weeks back to eating awesome food. Yay. I really wouldn't have thought it but I can't stand pasta anymore, at all. And I used to eat nothing but in Uni.
I have not been following as paleo a diet as I would like. Travelling and money concerns have made it tough on me in the past few months so I've been stuck on a "eat whatever is given to me" type of mentality LoL. The only good-(ish) thing I guess is that I've actually been eating less calories as a result. But I NEED to increase my caloric intake now by almost double and I need to start doing it cleanly. Now that I'm settled down I've started to do a ton of physical activities every day.
Does anyone have any good sites or blogs for paleo on a budget? I've been doing 1/2 GOMAD (my gut can't handle a full gallon) for the cheap calories but I realize this isn't paleo. I'd like to fill out the rest of my diet with nothing but MEAT and VEGGIES once again.
On February 07 2012 02:39 MajinMojo wrote: I have not been following as paleo a diet as I would like. Travelling and money concerns have made it tough on me in the past few months so I've been stuck on a "eat whatever is given to me" type of mentality LoL. The only good-(ish) thing I guess is that I've actually been eating less calories as a result. But I NEED to increase my caloric intake now by almost double and I need to start doing it cleanly. Now that I'm settled down I've started to do a ton of physical activities every day.
Does anyone have any good sites or blogs for paleo on a budget? I've been doing 1/2 GOMAD (my gut can't handle a full gallon) for the cheap calories but I realize this isn't paleo. I'd like to fill out the rest of my diet with nothing but MEAT and VEGGIES once again.
Just saw this on a blog I follow and laughed out loud. At the same time, it's a decent resource for any of your friends who might be trying a 30 day challenge but can't remember what they should be eating.
Just saw this on a blog I follow and laughed out loud. At the same time, it's a decent resource for any of your friends who might be trying a 30 day challenge but can't remember what they should be eating.
lol, that came out of a whiteboard pick on facebook about a month ago
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
Stop trolling.
I am not trolling, there is no evidence of this evolution you are talking about.
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
Stop trolling.
I am not trolling, there is no evidence of this evolution you are talking about.
I have this sinking feeling that this isn't going to end well...
Aside from taking the thread into a mostly irrelevant tangent, the logic smack down leveled by Eshlow in the last few pages should have been a pretty big warning sign against stupid arguments.
Are sweet potatoes much different in taste than yams (taste-wise, nutritionally)? I've been eating yams, thinking they were sweet potatoes, and everyone paleo talks about sweet potatoes, and I haven't heard yams even mentioned.
Yams and sweet potatoes are a different species of tuber. Not related at all. I do know that sweet potatoes are considered very healthy and even topped the list of "most nutritious"(although I disagree with their methodology).
Anybody got any good tuna recipes? Ideally something light and simple with few ingredients, but I'm willing to try something new. What do you guys suggest?
On February 08 2012 10:55 Dalguno wrote: Are sweet potatoes much different in taste than yams (taste-wise, nutritionally)? I've been eating yams, thinking they were sweet potatoes, and everyone paleo talks about sweet potatoes, and I haven't heard yams even mentioned.
Apparently most "yams" sold in U.S. supermarkets are actually sweet potatoes anyway. My local Giant never seems to have the same variety two weeks in a row, so all I can really say is that some are better than others. But I imagine the tastier ones are a little less healthy since they'll have more sugar.
On February 08 2012 10:55 Dalguno wrote: Are sweet potatoes much different in taste than yams (taste-wise, nutritionally)? I've been eating yams, thinking they were sweet potatoes, and everyone paleo talks about sweet potatoes, and I haven't heard yams even mentioned.
are you me? I was just talking to a friend about this today. fwiw we came to the conclusion that they're pretty close to each nutritionally and tastewise (at least the ones in north american supermarkets) but yam's are sweeter
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
Stop trolling.
I am not trolling, there is no evidence of this evolution you are talking about.
I have this sinking feeling that this isn't going to end well...
Aside from taking the thread into a mostly irrelevant tangent, the logic smack down leveled by Eshlow in the last few pages should have been a pretty big warning sign against stupid arguments.
I looked through the last few pages for the "smackdown" but couldn't find anything. What are you talking about exactly? How do you explain that people are getting healed from all sorts of diseases on a Low fat, High-Carb Vegan diet, the exact opposite of the Paleo diet? http://www.drmcdougall.com/star.html
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
Stop trolling.
I am not trolling, there is no evidence of this evolution you are talking about.
I have this sinking feeling that this isn't going to end well...
Aside from taking the thread into a mostly irrelevant tangent, the logic smack down leveled by Eshlow in the last few pages should have been a pretty big warning sign against stupid arguments.
I looked through the last few pages for the "smackdown" but couldn't find anything. What are you talking about exactly? How do you explain that people are getting healed from all sort of diseases on a Low fat, High-Carb Vegan diet, the exact opposite of the Paleo diet? http://www.drmcdougall.com/star.html
Anecdotal evidence is completely meaningless.
Also, why do you call this McDougall diet the exact opposite of the Paleo diet? Is it because you think Paleo is strictly a Low-Carb/High-Fat diet? I think this would be a misconception on your part, because the greater focus of Paleo is on the quality of foods, and carbs that come from foods such as vegetables is totally fine.
The average American diet is very shitty, so it's not hard to see why both of these diets would be a vast improvement over it.
BTW I think your 30 banana thing is kind of ridiculous. It's just too much sugar.
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
Stop trolling.
I am not trolling, there is no evidence of this evolution you are talking about.
I have this sinking feeling that this isn't going to end well...
Aside from taking the thread into a mostly irrelevant tangent, the logic smack down leveled by Eshlow in the last few pages should have been a pretty big warning sign against stupid arguments.
I looked through the last few pages for the "smackdown" but couldn't find anything. What are you talking about exactly? How do you explain that people are getting healed from all sorts of diseases on a Low fat, High-Carb Vegan diet, the exact opposite of the Paleo diet? http://www.drmcdougall.com/star.html
For starters, paleo diet is about meat, nuts, veggies and fruits. It is neither high carb or low carb, its up to you and your goals. I am sure if you stop overeating and ditch processed food, even if you eat grains, you will see a an increase in appearance and health, just for the weight lose alone. I skimmed that website and can't find a 101 of the diet you talk about, but I can tell you right now that this guy nor 99% his followers are close to being an intermediate athlete. It is possible to eat healthy being vegan, but its extremely hard and requires a whole lot deal of supplements. There are ethical reasons for which veganism is acceptable, but there is rare (I assume there are diseases) to do it because its "healthy", cause it's not. If you wanna do sports, and put on muscle, you need your meat.
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
Stop trolling.
I am not trolling, there is no evidence of this evolution you are talking about.
I have this sinking feeling that this isn't going to end well...
Aside from taking the thread into a mostly irrelevant tangent, the logic smack down leveled by Eshlow in the last few pages should have been a pretty big warning sign against stupid arguments.
I looked through the last few pages for the "smackdown" but couldn't find anything. What are you talking about exactly? How do you explain that people are getting healed from all sort of diseases on a Low fat, High-Carb Vegan diet, the exact opposite of the Paleo diet? http://www.drmcdougall.com/star.html
Anecdotal evidence is completely meaningless.
Also, why do you call this McDougall diet the exact opposite of the Paleo diet? Is it because you think Paleo is strictly a Low-Carb/High-Fat diet? I think this would be a misconception on your part, because the greater focus of Paleo is on the quality of foods, and carbs that come from foods such as vegetables is totally fine.
The average American diet is very shitty, so it's not hard to see why both of these diets would be a vast improvement over it.
BTW I think your 30 banana thing is kind of ridiculous. It's just too much sugar.
LOL too much sugar? Why don't you be objective and tell me exactly HOW much is too much? < debunking paleo
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
Stop trolling.
I am not trolling, there is no evidence of this evolution you are talking about.
I have this sinking feeling that this isn't going to end well...
Aside from taking the thread into a mostly irrelevant tangent, the logic smack down leveled by Eshlow in the last few pages should have been a pretty big warning sign against stupid arguments.
I looked through the last few pages for the "smackdown" but couldn't find anything. What are you talking about exactly? How do you explain that people are getting healed from all sorts of diseases on a Low fat, High-Carb Vegan diet, the exact opposite of the Paleo diet? http://www.drmcdougall.com/star.html
For starters, paleo diet is about meat, nuts, veggies and fruits. It is neither high carb or low carb, its up to you and your goals. I am sure if you stop overeating and ditch processed food, even if you eat grains, you will see a an increase in appearance and health, just for the weight lose alone. I skimmed that website and can't find a 101 of the diet you talk about, but I can tell you right now that this guy nor 99% his followers are close to being an intermediate athlete. It is possible to eat healthy being vegan, but its extremely hard and requires a whole lot deal of supplements. There are ethical reasons for which veganism is acceptable, but there is rare (I assume there are diseases) to do it because its "healthy", cause it's not. If you wanna do sports, and put on muscle, you need your meat.
There are plenty of vegan bodybuilders, just look into it. Carl Lewis was vegan, true he isn't an intermediate athlete.
Elizar, if you really care about furthering your knowledge, why don't you read this great analysis of The China Study and express what it is about the empirical data or statistical analysis that you disagree with. The China Study is essentially the basis for all vegan misinformation. It is cited over and over and it is just... flawed. Please read the information:
Although I am guessing it will be hard for me to reason against somebody who says, "How do you explain that people are getting healed from all sort of diseases on a Low fat, High-Carb Vegan diet, the exact opposite of the Paleo diet? http://www.drmcdougall.com/star.html"
How can you honestly say that? There has never been any clinical study that proves that diet has magical healing powers. You have some anecdotal evidence... do you know what that means? Bah, I am probably wasting my breath.
On February 09 2012 06:06 skipdog172 wrote: Elizar, if you really care about furthering your knowledge, why don't you read this great analysis of The China Study and express what it is about the empirical data or statistical analysis that you disagree with. The China Study is essentially the basis for all vegan misinformation. It is cited over and over and it is just... flawed. Please read the information:
Although I am guessing it will be hard for me to reason against somebody who says, "How do you explain that people are getting healed from all sort of diseases on a Low fat, High-Carb Vegan diet, the exact opposite of the Paleo diet? http://www.drmcdougall.com/star.html"
How can you honestly say that? There has never been any clinical study that proves that diet has magical healing powers. You have some anecdotal evidence... do you know what that means? Bah, I am probably wasting my breath.
No diet has magical healing powers, no food has magical healing powers, I am in no way debating that. Health is a very broad subject, when it comes to health diet isn't everything, EVERYTHING is everything. You eat a healthy diet but you sleep 3 hours everyday, you are under high stress, you don't get any sunlight, you don't go out to breathe any fresh air, of course you are going to be unhealthy. It's just that diet is usually the weakest link for most people. But hey if diet isn't the weakest link for you then you can go ahead and focus on the weakest link for you weather it is exercise or sleep or any of the other things that will move your health levels on up. Has Denise Minger Read 'The China Study'? -- A Collective Rebuttal http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/has-denise-minger-read-the
This debate is a waste of time and space. This thread is to help out people who are interested in the Paleo Diet. ElizarTringov, if you want to talk about vegan diets, you should go to the existing Vegan Threads or perhaps create your own thread.
On February 09 2012 06:48 Slithe wrote: This debate is a waste of time and space. This thread is to help out people who are interested in the Paleo Diet. ElizarTringov, if you want to talk about vegan diets, you should go to the existing Vegan Threads or perhaps create your own thread.
I find the Paleo diet is a danger to peoples health. I guess I should stand by on the sidelines and let them suffer health problems?
On February 09 2012 06:48 Slithe wrote: This debate is a waste of time and space. This thread is to help out people who are interested in the Paleo Diet. ElizarTringov, if you want to talk about vegan diets, you should go to the existing Vegan Threads or perhaps create your own thread.
I find the Paleo diet is a danger to peoples health. I guess I should stand by on the sidelines and let them suffer health problems?
If you are a credible and reasonable person, then people might listen to you. But you come into this thread and fling shit at everybody, and expect people to hear you out?
On February 09 2012 06:48 Slithe wrote: This debate is a waste of time and space. This thread is to help out people who are interested in the Paleo Diet. ElizarTringov, if you want to talk about vegan diets, you should go to the existing Vegan Threads or perhaps create your own thread.
I find the Paleo diet is a danger to peoples health. I guess I should stand by on the sidelines and let them suffer health problems?
If you are a credible and reasonable person, then people might listen to you. But you come into this thread and fling shit at everybody, and expect people to hear you out?
On February 09 2012 06:48 Slithe wrote: This debate is a waste of time and space. This thread is to help out people who are interested in the Paleo Diet. ElizarTringov, if you want to talk about vegan diets, you should go to the existing Vegan Threads or perhaps create your own thread.
I find the Paleo diet is a danger to peoples health. I guess I should stand by on the sidelines and let them suffer health problems?
If you are a credible and reasonable person, then people might listen to you. But you come into this thread and fling shit at everybody, and expect people to hear you out?
I didn't fling shit.
So that video that you posted above wasn't bashing the paleo diet?
On February 09 2012 06:48 Slithe wrote: This debate is a waste of time and space. This thread is to help out people who are interested in the Paleo Diet. ElizarTringov, if you want to talk about vegan diets, you should go to the existing Vegan Threads or perhaps create your own thread.
I find the Paleo diet is a danger to peoples health. I guess I should stand by on the sidelines and let them suffer health problems?
If you are a credible and reasonable person, then people might listen to you. But you come into this thread and fling shit at everybody, and expect people to hear you out?
I didn't fling shit.
So that video that you posted above wasn't bashing the paleo diet?
That video is 1 of 71. I wasn't exactly going to post 71 links. I understand it will take some time to watch, but I think it is worth watching. Maybe the first video did bash it but it was with good reason.
I am so happy that I don't have to argue about nutrition anymore. "Eat real food" is where every argument ends for me. People that tell me that either meat (so much fat!) or fruits (fructose bad!) will kill me are both in their own way delusional. All this low fat vs low carb bullshit makes my brain hurt
Besides that, I just watched the first of this 71 youtube videos. and it made me visit primalblueprint.com. It really has to be said, for advocating a cave-man-diet, this site really sells a lot of supplement, what the fuck. But this Mark Sisson always seemed to look more like a guru to me, Paleo is just plain business for him.
Paleo still seems like a good way to eat to me, and in no way unhealthy. Though it is not for me.
On February 09 2012 06:48 Slithe wrote: This debate is a waste of time and space. This thread is to help out people who are interested in the Paleo Diet. ElizarTringov, if you want to talk about vegan diets, you should go to the existing Vegan Threads or perhaps create your own thread.
+1 we stay out of the vegan threads as well since we made the same argument you're making here ("I find the Paleo (replace with Vegan) diet is a danger to peoples health. I guess I should stand by on the sidelines and let them suffer health problems?") and got shit for it. so please respect people who want to live this way. thanks
On February 09 2012 06:48 Slithe wrote: This debate is a waste of time and space. This thread is to help out people who are interested in the Paleo Diet. ElizarTringov, if you want to talk about vegan diets, you should go to the existing Vegan Threads or perhaps create your own thread.
+1 we stay out of the vegan threads as well since we made the same argument you're making here ("I find the Paleo (replace with Vegan) diet is a danger to peoples health. I guess I should stand by on the sidelines and let them suffer health problems?") and got shit for it. so please respect people who want to live this way. thanks
That's fine just trying to help people. Just throwing some info out there.
I appreciate that but I think it's pretty hard to change people's beliefs. cant blame you for trying (we did the same in the vegan/vegetarian threads ) it's just that it usually doesnt end very well hehe
edit: maybe we should have a seperate discussion thread where you guys can through studies at each others heads all day long
On February 09 2012 06:48 Slithe wrote: This debate is a waste of time and space. This thread is to help out people who are interested in the Paleo Diet. ElizarTringov, if you want to talk about vegan diets, you should go to the existing Vegan Threads or perhaps create your own thread.
I find the Paleo diet is a danger to peoples health. I guess I should stand by on the sidelines and let them suffer health problems?
Ah yes, the paleo studies show that it's dangerous for your health.... oh wait..... there are none that show Paleo is bad for your health.
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
You call this not flinging shit?
It's a blatant straw man and trolling attempt
I provided evidence that Paleo improves CVD, health, etc..
If you want to "argue" (although I'm still convinced it's trolling) provide some studies that show Paleo is harming people's health. It's that simple, right? Pubmed and google scholar should provide you some evidence pretty easily if what you are claiming is true. You claim it, get some evidence to back it up.
If you cannot provide any studies then STFU and GTFO and don't come back.
On February 09 2012 06:48 Slithe wrote: This debate is a waste of time and space. This thread is to help out people who are interested in the Paleo Diet. ElizarTringov, if you want to talk about vegan diets, you should go to the existing Vegan Threads or perhaps create your own thread.
I find the Paleo diet is a danger to peoples health. I guess I should stand by on the sidelines and let them suffer health problems?
Ah yes, the paleo studies show that it's dangerous for your health.... oh wait..... there are none that show Paleo is bad for your health.
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
You call this not flinging shit?
It's a blatant straw man and trolling attempt
I provided evidence that Paleo improves CVD, health, etc..
If you want to "argue" (although I'm still convinced it's trolling) provide some studies that show Paleo is harming people's health. It's that simple, right? Pubmed and google scholar should provide you some evidence pretty easily if what you are claiming is true. You claim it, get some evidence to back it up.
If you cannot provide any studies then STFU and GTFO and don't come back.
I provided the link to part 1 of a series of 73 videos that debunks Paleo diet in 1 of my posts.
On February 09 2012 06:48 Slithe wrote: This debate is a waste of time and space. This thread is to help out people who are interested in the Paleo Diet. ElizarTringov, if you want to talk about vegan diets, you should go to the existing Vegan Threads or perhaps create your own thread.
I find the Paleo diet is a danger to peoples health. I guess I should stand by on the sidelines and let them suffer health problems?
Ah yes, the paleo studies show that it's dangerous for your health.... oh wait..... there are none that show Paleo is bad for your health.
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
You call this not flinging shit?
It's a blatant straw man and trolling attempt
I provided evidence that Paleo improves CVD, health, etc..
If you want to "argue" (although I'm still convinced it's trolling) provide some studies that show Paleo is harming people's health. It's that simple, right? Pubmed and google scholar should provide you some evidence pretty easily if what you are claiming is true. You claim it, get some evidence to back it up.
If you cannot provide any studies then STFU and GTFO and don't come back.
I provided the link to part 1 of a series of 73 videos that debunks Paleo diet in 1 of my posts.
Then I'm sure you can get the studies they cite and put them in this thread.
On February 09 2012 06:48 Slithe wrote: This debate is a waste of time and space. This thread is to help out people who are interested in the Paleo Diet. ElizarTringov, if you want to talk about vegan diets, you should go to the existing Vegan Threads or perhaps create your own thread.
I find the Paleo diet is a danger to peoples health. I guess I should stand by on the sidelines and let them suffer health problems?
Ah yes, the paleo studies show that it's dangerous for your health.... oh wait..... there are none that show Paleo is bad for your health.
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
You call this not flinging shit?
It's a blatant straw man and trolling attempt
I provided evidence that Paleo improves CVD, health, etc..
If you want to "argue" (although I'm still convinced it's trolling) provide some studies that show Paleo is harming people's health. It's that simple, right? Pubmed and google scholar should provide you some evidence pretty easily if what you are claiming is true. You claim it, get some evidence to back it up.
If you cannot provide any studies then STFU and GTFO and don't come back.
I provided the link to part 1 of a series of 73 videos that debunks Paleo diet in 1 of my posts.
Then I'm sure you can get the studies they cite and put them in this thread.
I'll be waiting.
I am sure you can click the link and watch the videos yourself, I'll be waiting.
On February 09 2012 06:48 Slithe wrote: This debate is a waste of time and space. This thread is to help out people who are interested in the Paleo Diet. ElizarTringov, if you want to talk about vegan diets, you should go to the existing Vegan Threads or perhaps create your own thread.
I find the Paleo diet is a danger to peoples health. I guess I should stand by on the sidelines and let them suffer health problems?
Ah yes, the paleo studies show that it's dangerous for your health.... oh wait..... there are none that show Paleo is bad for your health.
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
You call this not flinging shit?
It's a blatant straw man and trolling attempt
I provided evidence that Paleo improves CVD, health, etc..
If you want to "argue" (although I'm still convinced it's trolling) provide some studies that show Paleo is harming people's health. It's that simple, right? Pubmed and google scholar should provide you some evidence pretty easily if what you are claiming is true. You claim it, get some evidence to back it up.
If you cannot provide any studies then STFU and GTFO and don't come back.
I provided the link to part 1 of a series of 73 videos that debunks Paleo diet in 1 of my posts.
Then I'm sure you can get the studies they cite and put them in this thread.
I'll be waiting.
I am sure you can click the link and watch the videos yourself, I'll be waiting.
Dude there's 73 fucking videos, each like 10 minutes long. Who's going to go out of their way to comb through them and find all the studies to help YOU prove your point?
You come under the guise of wanting to help people improve their diets, but you're actually just a pretentious douchebag. Fuck Off.
On February 09 2012 06:48 Slithe wrote: This debate is a waste of time and space. This thread is to help out people who are interested in the Paleo Diet. ElizarTringov, if you want to talk about vegan diets, you should go to the existing Vegan Threads or perhaps create your own thread.
I find the Paleo diet is a danger to peoples health. I guess I should stand by on the sidelines and let them suffer health problems?
Ah yes, the paleo studies show that it's dangerous for your health.... oh wait..... there are none that show Paleo is bad for your health.
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
You call this not flinging shit?
It's a blatant straw man and trolling attempt
I provided evidence that Paleo improves CVD, health, etc..
If you want to "argue" (although I'm still convinced it's trolling) provide some studies that show Paleo is harming people's health. It's that simple, right? Pubmed and google scholar should provide you some evidence pretty easily if what you are claiming is true. You claim it, get some evidence to back it up.
If you cannot provide any studies then STFU and GTFO and don't come back.
I provided the link to part 1 of a series of 73 videos that debunks Paleo diet in 1 of my posts.
Then I'm sure you can get the studies they cite and put them in this thread.
I'll be waiting.
I am sure you can click the link and watch the videos yourself, I'll be waiting.
eshlow, why even argue with this guy? This person clearly cannot make an argument as such. If he's lazy to even provide you citations of those videos - let alone if he's even watched all of them - then it obvious that he's arguing for the sake of argument. The only opinions of his are generalizations. I'm starting to wonder if he's even took the time to form an legitimate argument of his own through literature.
Paleo is a matter of choice. There's enough evidence to say that it's viable and of course healthier than the current diets of most people in the US. No one is forcing you to do anything. If it doesn't work for you, then move on.
On February 09 2012 06:48 Slithe wrote: This debate is a waste of time and space. This thread is to help out people who are interested in the Paleo Diet. ElizarTringov, if you want to talk about vegan diets, you should go to the existing Vegan Threads or perhaps create your own thread.
I find the Paleo diet is a danger to peoples health. I guess I should stand by on the sidelines and let them suffer health problems?
Ah yes, the paleo studies show that it's dangerous for your health.... oh wait..... there are none that show Paleo is bad for your health.
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
You call this not flinging shit?
It's a blatant straw man and trolling attempt
I provided evidence that Paleo improves CVD, health, etc..
If you want to "argue" (although I'm still convinced it's trolling) provide some studies that show Paleo is harming people's health. It's that simple, right? Pubmed and google scholar should provide you some evidence pretty easily if what you are claiming is true. You claim it, get some evidence to back it up.
If you cannot provide any studies then STFU and GTFO and don't come back.
I provided the link to part 1 of a series of 73 videos that debunks Paleo diet in 1 of my posts.
Then I'm sure you can get the studies they cite and put them in this thread.
I'll be waiting.
I am sure you can click the link and watch the videos yourself, I'll be waiting.
eshlow, why even argue with this guy? This person clearly cannot make an argument as such. If he's lazy to even provide you citations of those videos - let alone if he's even watched all of them - then it obvious that he's arguing for the sake of argument. The only opinions of his are generalizations. I'm starting to wonder if he's even took the time to form an legitimate argument of his own through literature.
Paleo is a matter of choice. There's enough evidence to say that it's viable and of course healthier than the current diets of most people in the US. No one is forcing you to do anything. If it doesn't work for you, then move on.
But I wanted to give him a chance since people can be dbags and actually know stuff. But without anything of substance I would agree it's pointless.
Last time I checked, a youtube video was not a study citation, lol.
On February 09 2012 06:48 Slithe wrote: This debate is a waste of time and space. This thread is to help out people who are interested in the Paleo Diet. ElizarTringov, if you want to talk about vegan diets, you should go to the existing Vegan Threads or perhaps create your own thread.
I find the Paleo diet is a danger to peoples health. I guess I should stand by on the sidelines and let them suffer health problems?
Ah yes, the paleo studies show that it's dangerous for your health.... oh wait..... there are none that show Paleo is bad for your health.
On September 06 2011 00:48 eshlow wrote: Why Paleo?
The nutritional guidelines that many people from the previous TL Health and Fitness thread recommend is the Paleolithic diet.
Despite what you may have heard about the Paleo diet, it is neither low carbohydrate or high carbohydrate. It can be either depending on how many carbohydrates you eat from fruits and vegetables.
Instead, the Paleo diet focuses specifically on inclusion of high quality and nutrient rich foods upon which we evolved: fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meat, birds, fish, eggs.
Dairy, grains, and legumes are excluded specifically because of potential detrimental aspects that these foods may on our gastroinstestinal system and subsequently the rest of our organ systems by proxy.
As an aside my personal opinion is that dairy is fine as long as you are not lactose intolerant.
Grains and legumes are touted by the government as healthy even though there is little evidence supporting these statements especially regarding fiber and nutrients as fruits and vegetables provide more of each and are healthier. Many people have heard of Celiac's disease which is characterized by chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract due to gluten, a protein in wheat and many other grains.
It was thought that in the absence of Celiac's there seemed to be little evidence to the detrimental effect of grains. However, that is changing as recent research into suggests that gluten sensitivity may exist in upwards of 2/3rds of the population. Another. In particular, gliadin protein seems to specifically stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against transglutaminase which is a protein in all cells within the body.
Thus, grains may contribute to the pathogenesis of many of the so-called disease of civilizations which include:
1. neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the severity of Huntington's 2. Cardiovascular disease which includes heart disease, atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease, stroke 3. Pulmonary disease asthma, COPD, etc. 4. Metabolic disease which includes diabetes 1 and 2, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis 5. Gastrointestinal disease such as Celiac's, Crohn's, IBS, Colitis, etc. 6. Organ issues such as kidney, liver, etc. 7. Autoimmune such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, SLE, dermatitis, etc. 8. And others such as cancer, depression, obesity, acne, etc.
Doc who "cured" her 2nd degree multiple sclerosis: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc
There are several other factors involved in the pathogenesis of many of these diseases that can be obtained from diet besides (1) gluten/grains such as (2) excessive amounts of carbohydrates especially fructose, (3) excessive intake of omega 6 oils throwing off O6:O3 balance, and (4) trans fats.
These 4 dietary factors comprise most of the problems with the modern diet.
Additionally, there are other factors to consider beyond diet:
1. High stress all the time. Stress increases insulin resistance, and production of cortisol (which decreases inflammation in short term but chronically there's a lot of negatives). 2. Lack of sleep. Increases insulin resistance, and inflammation. 3. Lack of exercise (exercise increases insulin sensitivity among other things). 4. Lack of vitamin D (potent anti-inflammatory, immune system modulator, etc.)
On December 21 2011 10:38 goose114 wrote: I just wanted to offer up a few of things that you might find interesting that I didn't see mentioned in the OP.
The videos linked in the OP, Big Fat Fiasco, were the precursor to the documentary Fat Head, which is available on Netflix and Hulu, and expands upon the research presented in the YouTube videos. There is also a blog at http://www.fathead-movie.com that is updated pretty regularly with interesting material.
I saw someone else mentioned Gary Taubes in the thread. His books are well regarded, but I haven't read them; however, I do read some of the things he publishes online at http://garytaubes.com.
Finally, this lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig goes into very in-depth and well-researched detail about the damage caused by sugar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Paleo for those with diseases, the athletes, and the healthy
As stated before, Paleo is a QUALITY OF FOODS diet. It is neither low carb or high carb; it can be either depending on what the health issues someone is having and/or the activities that they under take.
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."
In general, low carbohydrate or ketogenis type diets tend to very strongly influence weight loss and improve various diseases. They also have a strong neuroprotective effect because ketone bodies can be used as energy in the brain in the absence of glucose because of systemic insulin resistance.
1. In regards to obesity/overweight to get the quickest/best results, it is recommended to go on a lower carbohydrate diet (typically <125g of carbohydrates from any source) per day and get the rest of calories from protein, animal fats, or coconut/avocadoes/nuts.
2. In regards to athletes, the carbohydrate level can be increased through greater consumption of dietary carbohydrates in fruits, vegetables.
3. In regards to healthy living in otherwise disease free individuals -- low or no carbohydrate diets are not recommended. This is covered in depth with analysis in this post if you want to know the reasons why.
Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day. It's even noted in populations where if they didn't have any type of starch sources such as potatoes that even if they had meats they would say they were starving.
See this post by Kurt Harris for more details on some of the recommendations above (independently came to it seems as well).
On October 20 2011 06:44 flare8 wrote: I've got a big collection/overview of scientific studies (and some anthropology) about health and disease. Much of it is inspired by 'paleo' writers, or people close such as weston price etc. Please have a look if you're technically minded:
>> Logging your food is one of the better ways analyze the quality and quantity of your nutrition.
If you are having a hard time gaining or losing weight in particular, or poor health and looking to eat healthier then doing this is a very good idea. It doesn't matter when you eat so much as what you eat.
Woah woah woah I have to stop you at EVOLVED. Have you looked at the current state of humanity? We can't even provide the basics of food, water and shelter for our whole population. What kind of an evolution is that? We made a few gadgets and made it to the moon and all of a sudden we evolved?
You call this not flinging shit?
It's a blatant straw man and trolling attempt
I provided evidence that Paleo improves CVD, health, etc..
If you want to "argue" (although I'm still convinced it's trolling) provide some studies that show Paleo is harming people's health. It's that simple, right? Pubmed and google scholar should provide you some evidence pretty easily if what you are claiming is true. You claim it, get some evidence to back it up.
If you cannot provide any studies then STFU and GTFO and don't come back.
The first study mentions "healty" nonobese sedentary individuals. What is their definition of health exactly, can a sedentary individual truly be healthy compared to one who exercises? If by health they mean that the individuals were simply disease free than that really misses the mark on health, does anyone really want to only be disease free or do they want to have abundant health and vitality? After all you could be "healthy" now but die within the next year if the only definition of health is that you have to be disease free now. It The study doesn't really say what their previous diet consisted off so I don't know what the paleolithic diet is being compared to exactly.
If you scroll down to Later Developments you will see the: In 1976, Nathan Pritikin opened a centre where patients were put on programme of diet and exercise (the Pritikin Program). This diet is high on carbohydrates and fibre, with fresh fruit, vegetables, and whole grains. A study at UCLA in 2005 showed that it brought dramatic improvement to a group of diabetics and pre-diabetics in only three weeks, so that about half no longer met the criteria for the disease.[5][6][7][8]
Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the study you posted which was conducted in 3 month period.
Considering the fact that they compare Paleo to Mediterranean-like diet then I can't really disagree since I don't think a Mediterranean that includes, oil, margarine, and low-fat dairy is really conductive to health either. This is simply a case of bad versus worse.
The study shows unfavorable changes in calcium. I also like their conclusion that control groups are needed, after all what if you compare individuals on SAD who go on a number of diets, from vegetarian(including low-fat and high fat), to vegan(including low-fat and high-fat), lacto-ovo vegetarian and any number of diets. If you are comparing Paleo to SAD then I have to agree that Paleo IS better, but the again almost any diet is better than SAD.
If you look on page 1: "These studies were supported in part by a research grant from the Institute of American Meat Packers." Am I really supposed to believe that they would fund studies that show the negative health effects of meat? Am I supposed to believe they are funding this study to help people make better decisions on what food to buy for health? I am more prone to believe they just want another selling point of meat.
Didn't bother with the article just went down to the citations. Number 6 shows: "Despite the high contribution of animal food to the total energy intake (64%), the diet was low in total fat (13%) due to the very low fat content of wild animals." http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/6/596.abstract Any diet that is that low in fat and has whole foods involved is bound to reap benefits, in fact the Pritikin Principle is a diet based on 10% fat at most, I already posted the results of that diet after a 3 week period in diabetics. Another thing to note was that they actually lived as hunter gatherers, they didn't just buy their meat from the store, if you look on http://cronometer.com/ 95% lean lean beef, 5% fat is actually 32.9 percent fat. The meat they hunted for and the meat most people would actually eat on a Paleo diet is apparently much different in fat content. Here is another quote from the study "A detailed analysis of food intake over 2 wk revealed a low-energy intake (1200 kcal/person/day)" I am wondering did they make a mistake here no man on the planet can consume 1200 Kcal, after all that is 1,200,000 calories. I guess they made a mistake and meant calories, but if that is what they meant it is no wonder why there are improvements, when you are eating that small amount of calories from ANY whole food source you are bound to see improvements in a number of areas.
Number 11: "In Table 1, it is shown that 85.3% of the cereals consumed in the current US diet are highly processed refined grains." So why does the Paleo diet exclude whole grains when it is highly processed grains that are the problem? Another quote from the study "Acid-base balance After digestion, absorption, and metabolism, nearly all foods release either acid or bicarbonate (base) into the systemic circulation (146, 147). As shown in Table 5, fish, meat, poultry, eggs, shellfish, cheese, milk, and cereal grains are net acid producing, whereas fresh fruit, vegetables, tubers, roots, and nuts are net base producing." "Virtually all preagricultural diets were net base yielding because of the absence of cereals and energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods—foods that were introduced during the Neolithic and Industrial Eras and that displaced base-yielding fruit and vegetables (147). Consequently, a net base-producing diet was the norm throughout most of hominin evolution (147). The known health benefits of a net base-yielding diet include preventing and treating osteoporosis (150, 151), age-related muscle wasting (152), calcium kidney stones (153, 154), hypertension (155, 156), and exercise-induced asthma (157) and slow the progression of age- and disease-related chronic renal insufficiency (158)." So if we want to eat a net-base producing diet shouldn't we be eating fruit, vegetables, tubers, roots and nuts rather than meat products? Doesn't this show that meat is not a health food? This shows that the only reason they do well on meat is not because meat is health food, but because fruits, vegetables, tubers a roots counter some of the negative effects of meat, fish, poultry, eggs,shellfish, cheese, and milk(note we are talking meat as it is now not meat as it was back in Paleo days, the fat content of meat you buy in a supermarket is much different that meat you might hunt yourself(depending on animal). Quote on Fiber "Once again, the displacement of fiber-rich plant foods by novel dietary staples, introduced during the Neolithic and Industrial periods, was instrumental in changing the diets that our species had traditionally consumed—a diet that would have almost always been high in fiber. Soluble fibers (those found primarily in fruit and vegetables) modestly reduce total and LDL-cholesterol concentrations beyond those achieved by a diet low in saturated fat and fiber, by slowing gastric emptying, may reduce the appetite and help to control caloric intake (171). Diets low in dietary fiber may underlie or exacerbate constipation, appendicitis, hemorrhoids, deep vein thrombosis, varicose veins, diverticulitis, hiatal hernia, and gastroesophageal reflux (172)." But wait a minute Meat, fish, poulty, eggs, and shellfish are completely devoid of fiber, so why are they recommended on the paleo diet? In your first post you mention that Paleo eschews beans and legumes. And yet number 26. Insulin-sensitizing effects of dietary resistant starch and effects on skeletal muscle and adipose tissue metabolism. The conclusion of the study is: These results suggest that dietary supplementation with resistant starch has the potential to improve insulin sensitivity. Further studies in insulin-resistant persons are needed. So I looked up resistant starch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistant_starch and if you look you will see Navy beans are the highest, lentils are also on there, but yet you shouldn't eat them? 27. Fiber and cardiovascular disease risk: how strong is the evidence? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16407729 It's just another source for why fruits and vegetables, and even grains are good for you. 28.Beneficial effects of high dietary fiber intake in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200005113421903 Conclusion: A high intake of dietary fiber, particularly of the soluble type, above the level recommended by the ADA, improves glycemic control, decreases hyperinsulinemia, and lowers plasma lipid concentrations in patients with type 2 diabetes. Once again I have to mention that meat is completely devoid of any type of fiber.
It seems that the benefits of the Paleo diet don't come from eating lots of meat, but in fact come from the increased intake of fruits and vegetables. Of course when you switch from the SAD to a diet that has more fruits and vegetables you are sure to get benefits. It just shows that fruits and vegetables are so good for you that you might avoid health issues for sometime, but the more meat you consume, the more you move away from health in terms of diet. The more fruits and vegetables you consume the more you move towards it in terms of diet.
On February 10 2012 06:16 ElizarTringov wrote: Here is another quote from the study "A detailed analysis of food intake over 2 wk revealed a low-energy intake (1200 kcal/person/day)" I am wondering did they make a mistake here no man on the planet can consume 1200 Kcal, after all that is 1,200,000 calories. I guess they made a mistake and meant calories, but if that is what they meant it is no wonder why there are improvements, when you are eating that small amount of calories from ANY whole food source you are bound to see improvements in a number of areas.
On February 10 2012 06:16 ElizarTringov wrote: Here is another quote from the study "A detailed analysis of food intake over 2 wk revealed a low-energy intake (1200 kcal/person/day)" I am wondering did they make a mistake here no man on the planet can consume 1200 Kcal, after all that is 1,200,000 calories. I guess they made a mistake and meant calories, but if that is what they meant it is no wonder why there are improvements, when you are eating that small amount of calories from ANY whole food source you are bound to see improvements in a number of areas.
There are two definitions of calories, small calories and big calories. 1000 cal = 1 kcal = 1 Cal (mind the lower case vs upper case)
Not that I like his tone or approach in discussing this, but I think that's exactly the point he's trying to make. It's a mistake in a source Eshlow provided. Was going off what Slithe said
On February 10 2012 06:16 ElizarTringov wrote: Here is another quote from the study "A detailed analysis of food intake over 2 wk revealed a low-energy intake (1200 kcal/person/day)" I am wondering did they make a mistake here no man on the planet can consume 1200 Kcal, after all that is 1,200,000 calories. I guess they made a mistake and meant calories, but if that is what they meant it is no wonder why there are improvements, when you are eating that small amount of calories from ANY whole food source you are bound to see improvements in a number of areas.
There are two definitions of calories, small calories and big calories. 1000 cal = 1 kcal = 1 Cal (mind the lower case vs upper case)
Not that I like his tone or approach in discussing this, but I think that's exactly the point he's trying to make. It's a mistake in a source Eshlow provided.
No he is making a mistake/doesn't understand basic food labels. 1200 kcal is actually quite a small amount. 2000-3000 kcal a day is pretty normal.
The first study mentions "healty" nonobese sedentary individuals. What is their definition of health exactly, can a sedentary individual truly be healthy compared to one who exercises? If by health they mean that the individuals were simply disease free than that really misses the mark on health, does anyone really want to only be disease free or do they want to have abundant health and vitality? After all you could be "healthy" now but die within the next year if the only definition of health is that you have to be disease free now. It The study doesn't really say what their previous diet consisted off so I don't know what the paleolithic diet is being compared to exactly.
Straw man. You claim:
I find the Paleo diet is a danger to peoples health. I guess I should stand by on the sidelines and let them suffer health problems?
Paleo improves blood markers which are associated with increased risk fo CVD. So obviously this is clearly improving health.
The first study mentions "healty" nonobese sedentary individuals. What is their definition of health exactly, can a sedentary individual truly be healthy compared to one who exercises? If by health they mean that the individuals were simply disease free than that really misses the mark on health, does anyone really want to only be disease free or do they want to have abundant health and vitality? After all you could be "healthy" now but die within the next year if the only definition of health is that you have to be disease free now. It The study doesn't really say what their previous diet consisted off so I don't know what the paleolithic diet is being compared to exactly.
If you scroll down to Later Developments you will see the: In 1976, Nathan Pritikin opened a centre where patients were put on programme of diet and exercise (the Pritikin Program). This diet is high on carbohydrates and fibre, with fresh fruit, vegetables, and whole grains. A study at UCLA in 2005 showed that it brought dramatic improvement to a group of diabetics and pre-diabetics in only three weeks, so that about half no longer met the criteria for the disease.[5][6][7][8]
Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the study you posted which was conducted in 3 month period.
This is funny. That's why they have comparison studies to actually COMPARE Paleo to the diabetes diet
Patients on Paleo improved more on OGTT -- oral glucose tolerance test -- compared to diabetes diet in the above study referenced, and more were non-diabetic or pre-diabetic on Paleo than the diabetes diet. OGTT and fasting plasma glucose are both lower.
This is not including other markers of improvement.
But of course you didn't actually read the results
Considering the fact that they compare Paleo to Mediterranean-like diet then I can't really disagree since I don't think a Mediterranean that includes, oil, margarine, and low-fat dairy is really conductive to health either. This is simply a case of bad versus worse.
Med diet includes olive oil. Dairy is debatable, but actually included in Med diet.
I will concede that it doesn't include margarine; however, if you read the actually study the those on the med diet were not actually fed margarine so I have no clue why they put it in there.
lol @ this though. Mediterranean diet in the literature is one of the most proven diets to improve health. The fact that you're trying to debunk Med diet is just foolish.
The study shows unfavorable changes in calcium. I also like their conclusion that control groups are needed, after all what if you compare individuals on SAD who go on a number of diets, from vegetarian(including low-fat and high fat), to vegan(including low-fat and high-fat), lacto-ovo vegetarian and any number of diets. If you are comparing Paleo to SAD then I have to agree that Paleo IS better, but the again almost any diet is better than SAD.
Is this even a critique? Straw man SAD into the discussion?
If you look on page 1: "These studies were supported in part by a research grant from the Institute of American Meat Packers." Am I really supposed to believe that they would fund studies that show the negative health effects of meat? Am I supposed to believe they are funding this study to help people make better decisions on what food to buy for health? I am more prone to believe they just want another selling point of meat.
Another straw man (or I guess you could say it's more of a Guilt by association or biased sample or something along those lines)
Funding is a consideration.
However, unless you have proof they falsified their evidence/results I don't see the problem.
Last study,
You don't understand nutritional calories. All values are in kcals. 2000-2500 kcals is normal per day.
So why does the Paleo diet exclude whole grains when it is highly processed grains that are the problem? -- read the OP
So if we want to eat a net-base producing diet shouldn't we be eating fruit, vegetables, tubers, roots and nuts rather than meat products? Doesn't this show that meat is not a health food? -- acid/base balance is from balancing animal products with plants
But wait a minute Meat, fish, poulty, eggs, and shellfish are completely devoid of fiber, so why are they recommended on the paleo diet? -- paleo does not eschew vegetables and fruits
It doesn't matter if foods are devoid of fiber as long as you get fiber from sources.
So basically, you have an agenda against meat and fish and want everyone to go vegetarian/vegan
Except you actually don't even know enough about nutrition to know that 2000 kcals is acutally the 2000 calories that is referred to for a standard human, and many other mistakes like I showed in the above.
Come back when you have some studies that actually "debunk" Paleo like you claim
On February 10 2012 06:16 ElizarTringov wrote: Here is another quote from the study "A detailed analysis of food intake over 2 wk revealed a low-energy intake (1200 kcal/person/day)" I am wondering did they make a mistake here no man on the planet can consume 1200 Kcal, after all that is 1,200,000 calories. I guess they made a mistake and meant calories, but if that is what they meant it is no wonder why there are improvements, when you are eating that small amount of calories from ANY whole food source you are bound to see improvements in a number of areas.
There are two definitions of calories, small calories and big calories. 1000 cal = 1 kcal = 1 Cal (mind the lower case vs upper case)
Not that I like his tone or approach in discussing this, but I think that's exactly the point he's trying to make. It's a mistake in a source Eshlow provided.
I watched the first 10 parts, most of it was attacking the word choice of Cordain in his book. A lot of hot air. But I skipped around and found this interesting.
I never knew the origins of the 7 country study. This went into detail about it.
How come Robb Wolf recommends taking supplements? I mean if the diet isn't deficient in anything you shouldn't need supplements right?
Really?
Unfortunately, it is hard to acquire grassfed meat and non-farm fed fish, so supplementation of omega 3s may be valid; likewise, for vitamin D if you have a job inside. Obviously, naturally is best but you can run into issues in the "modern world."
Also, how come vegetarians and vegans NEED to take supplements to you know actually not get pernicious anemia for example? Vegs are more deficient in vitamins and minerals than Paleo.
My issue with nutrition science as a whole is that there's so many different studies that claim different things, so it's impossible for the average guy like me to be certain of anything. It seems that if you massage the statistics enough, you can prove anything.
My issue with nutrition science as a whole is that there's so many different studies that claim different things, so it's impossible for the average guy like me to be certain of anything. It seems that if you massage the statistics enough, you can prove anything.
thats pretty much how I feel. I think as long as you actually pay attention to what you eat, you're alright.
How come Robb Wolf recommends taking supplements? I mean if the diet isn't deficient in anything you shouldn't need supplements right?
Really?
Unfortunately, it is hard to acquire grassfed meat and non-farm fed fish, so supplementation of omega 3s may be valid; likewise, for vitamin D if you have a job inside. Obviously, naturally is best but you can run into issues in the "modern world."
Also, how come vegetarians and vegans NEED to take supplements to you know actually not get pernicious anemia for example? Vegs are more deficient in vitamins and minerals than Paleo.
The only way to actually know that is with a blood-test. I have already posted a vegan's blood test in another thread but if you want me to post it here I will do that. The only way Vegs would be more deficient is if they ate less fruit and veg than paleo, or if they had an absorption problem, otherwise I don't see why it would be the case. I also find that people have gotten great results with a diet that includes grains, such as the Dr.Mcdougall Programhttp://www.drmcdougall.com/
Another problem that I find about this diet is that it was made to fail, suppressing your craving for sugar requires willpower, but willpower requires glucose, someone on a diet like paleo isn't getting nearly enough glucose compared to someone like who is on a Dr.Mcdougall diet. http://psr.sagepub.com/content/11/4/303.short
My issue with nutrition science as a whole is that there's so many different studies that claim different things, so it's impossible for the average guy like me to be certain of anything. It seems that if you massage the statistics enough, you can prove anything.
Well if you don't want to rely on statistics just find the people who have the results you want and find out what they do. Do you want the results of http://www.robbwolf.com/2011/01/24/my-training-at-39/ Robb Wolf? "After the book tour I was about beat to death. Don’t get me wrong, it was an exciting time but between wrapping up the book, doing the PSS, pimping the book, time zone changes and the random gluten exposure while eating on the road…well, I was a mess. My biosignature showed high Cortisol, insulin resistance and the testosterone levels of an 80 year old. Woman.
I was NOT in good shape. I did not at that time do an ASI test which I now regret as I know things have improved dramatically but I’m just not that into reaffirming via diagnostic measures what I know already by observation. I’ll be better about that in the future as solid numbers ARE important for benchmarks. For sure I was not in great shape, about 170 lbs and body comp was around 15% body fat.
I was not digesting of my food very well, energy levels were low and on days when it was cloudy in Chico I got VERY squirrely. Luckily I had 5 weeks ahead of me with no travel so I decided to really get my shit together and do whatever it took to get healthy and strong again. The areas that I focused on supporting were sleep, adrenal function, digestion, and androgen production."
Take note of all the supplements he took: NowFoods Super Enzymes, CoQ10, OrthoAdapt, Cod Liver Oil, DHEA, NowFoods Tribulus 1000, hold on thats just after breakfast. Heres lunch: Super Enzymes, Tribulus Then dinner: NaturalCalm, Melatonin < he could have just gotten that by getting in enough carbs.
Do vegetarians really take that many supps? I know from personal experience, because I don't take any, I know my dad doesn't take any, nor my brother, or cousin ... I think you get the point. Not everybody gets their nutrients in pill, some people just eat the right food, plus remember health is more than just what you eat.
My issue with nutrition science as a whole is that there's so many different studies that claim different things, so it's impossible for the average guy like me to be certain of anything. It seems that if you massage the statistics enough, you can prove anything.
Well if you don't want to rely on statistics just find the people who have the results you want and find out what they do.
It is obviously stupid to take anecdotal evidence and individual experiences as compelling evidence for a particular diet. It's the equivalent of believing in a study where all the statistics are from a sample size of 1. Even if I were to follow this advice, it would still compel me to eat meat, since 99.9% of top-level athletes eat meat.
My issue with nutrition science as a whole is that there's so many different studies that claim different things, so it's impossible for the average guy like me to be certain of anything. It seems that if you massage the statistics enough, you can prove anything.
Well if you don't want to rely on statistics just find the people who have the results you want and find out what they do. Do you want the results of http://www.robbwolf.com/2011/01/24/my-training-at-39/ Robb Wolf? "After the book tour I was about beat to death. Don’t get me wrong, it was an exciting time but between wrapping up the book, doing the PSS, pimping the book, time zone changes and the random gluten exposure while eating on the road…well, I was a mess. My biosignature showed high Cortisol, insulin resistance and the testosterone levels of an 80 year old. Woman.
I was NOT in good shape. I did not at that time do an ASI test which I now regret as I know things have improved dramatically but I’m just not that into reaffirming via diagnostic measures what I know already by observation. I’ll be better about that in the future as solid numbers ARE important for benchmarks. For sure I was not in great shape, about 170 lbs and body comp was around 15% body fat.
I was not digesting of my food very well, energy levels were low and on days when it was cloudy in Chico I got VERY squirrely. Luckily I had 5 weeks ahead of me with no travel so I decided to really get my shit together and do whatever it took to get healthy and strong again. The areas that I focused on supporting were sleep, adrenal function, digestion, and androgen production."
Take note of all the supplements he took: NowFoods Super Enzymes, CoQ10, OrthoAdapt, Cod Liver Oil, DHEA, NowFoods Tribulus 1000, hold on thats just after breakfast. Heres lunch: Super Enzymes, Tribulus Then dinner: NaturalCalm, Melatonin < he could have just gotten that by getting in enough carbs.
Do vegetarians really take that many supps? I know from personal experience, because I don't take any, I know my dad doesn't take any, nor my brother, or cousin ... I think you get the point. Not everybody gets their nutrients in pill, some people just eat the right food, plus remember health is more than just what you eat.
" Chow
Like I mentioned, I was not digesting my food very well and I could take large does of the SuperEnzymes so I knew my HCL levels were low which means the normal signaling that governs the pancreas and gall bladder was lacking (remember most digestion takes place in the small intestine). I also suspected some dysbiosis (overgrowth of the wrong type of bugs) So I ate VERY low carb for a few weeks to starve any of the nastier bugs and started supplementing with some beneficial flora. I used Jarrow’s probiotic and a product from NewChapter. I know the Jarrowdophylis has a bit of dairy in it, but I’ve always liked the product. In the future I’d like to start making some homemade kraut and kimche as a probiotic. I just loves me some kraut!!
Macro wise I shot for 1gProtein/lb BW, lots of well cooked veggies ( to aid in digestion) and a “little fat.” This should look familiar to y’all. I took this in typically three meals although occasionally it was four or two. Because of the adrenal issues I had I was not pushing the intermittent fasting other than I tried to finish eating early (5-6pm) as it seemed to help my sleep. No food in the system allows for les competition with the melatonin passing the blood brain barrier AND it allows for your body temp to drop. At this point I was chubby and needed to lean out. So, I used the same plan I’d recommend to pretty much anyone. BEWARE the person who does not follow their own nutrition and exercise recommendations. "
How come Robb Wolf recommends taking supplements? I mean if the diet isn't deficient in anything you shouldn't need supplements right?
Really?
Unfortunately, it is hard to acquire grassfed meat and non-farm fed fish, so supplementation of omega 3s may be valid; likewise, for vitamin D if you have a job inside. Obviously, naturally is best but you can run into issues in the "modern world."
Also, how come vegetarians and vegans NEED to take supplements to you know actually not get pernicious anemia for example? Vegs are more deficient in vitamins and minerals than Paleo.
The only way to actually know that is with a blood-test. I have already posted a vegan's blood test in another thread but if you want me to post it here I will do that. The only way Vegs would be more deficient is if they ate less fruit and veg than paleo, or if they had an absorption problem, otherwise I don't see why it would be the case. I also find that people have gotten great results with a diet that includes grains, such as the Dr.Mcdougall Programhttp://www.drmcdougall.com/
Another problem that I find about this diet is that it was made to fail, suppressing your craving for sugar requires willpower, but willpower requires glucose, someone on a diet like paleo isn't getting nearly enough glucose compared to someone like who is on a Dr.Mcdougall diet. http://psr.sagepub.com/content/11/4/303.short
1) I'm not gonna comment on the nutritional deficiencies of veganism, given eshlow loves to do that stuff and actually knows a lot more, but it is quite evident that it is fucking hard to get the protein/zinc/iron intake that a person who actually does sports or lift weights requires without eating meat. There is a reason 99% of athletes eat meat regularly.
2) Assuming that abstract is somewhat true, you can still have all the glucose you want in the paleo diet (u know this thing called fruits?). It seems to me you keep confusing low carb diets with paleo diet, when they are just different.
From your posts it is evident that you should begin heavy weight lifting, particularly squatting and deadlifting.
Paleo, specifically higher protein and fat, don't suppress hunger but they do induce satiety through hormones such as ghrelin, leptin, cck, etc.
This is pointless.
You have no studies "debunking" Paleo so now you're just rambling about different people even though one (Robb) admits he is super stressed from traveling and should be focused on recovery factors.
Go find a vegan thread to post in so you can rant about Paleo here. You are making yourself look dumb since your arguments are terrible,
In you OP you mention: Typical hunter gatherer carbohydrate sources ranged from about 22-40% of total energy intake. On a 2,000 calorie diet, this is 440 - 800 calories from carbs which is 110-200g of carbs a day.
This is low carb COMPARED to what I call high carb which is at least 10g of carb per KG of bodyweight. For a person like me that is about 580g. If you were to try to do that on Paleo it wouldn't be paleo anymore because the ratio of plant to animal food would change completely.
My issue with nutrition science as a whole is that there's so many different studies that claim different things, so it's impossible for the average guy like me to be certain of anything. It seems that if you massage the statistics enough, you can prove anything.
Well if you don't want to rely on statistics just find the people who have the results you want and find out what they do.
It is obviously stupid to take anecdotal evidence and individual experiences as compelling evidence for a particular diet. It's the equivalent of believing in a study where all the statistics are from a sample size of 1. Even if I were to follow this advice, it would still compel me to eat meat, since 99.9% of top-level athletes eat meat.
On February 12 2012 22:02 eshlow wrote: Again, Paleo is not necessarily high or low carb.
Paleo, specifically higher protein and fat, don't suppress hunger but they do induce satiety through hormones such as ghrelin, leptin, cck, etc.
This is pointless.
You have no studies "debunking" Paleo so now you're just rambling about different people even though one (Robb) admits he is super stressed from traveling and should be focused on recovery factors.
Go find a vegan thread to post in so you can rant about Paleo here. You are making yourself look dumb since your arguments are terrible,
He is super stressed "from" traveling, or is he super stressed because the Paleo diet is thrashing his body? Didn't know Paleo man took pills to help him stay Paleo. I don't think you realize the research and results Dr.McDougall has gotten with patients automatically debunks Paleo by default, because his diet is high carb, low fat, vegan diet.
On February 12 2012 22:02 eshlow wrote: Again, Paleo is not necessarily high or low carb.
Paleo, specifically higher protein and fat, don't suppress hunger but they do induce satiety through hormones such as ghrelin, leptin, cck, etc.
This is pointless.
You have no studies "debunking" Paleo so now you're just rambling about different people even though one (Robb) admits he is super stressed from traveling and should be focused on recovery factors.
Go find a vegan thread to post in so you can rant about Paleo here. You are making yourself look dumb since your arguments are terrible,
He is super stressed "from" traveling, or is he super stressed because the Paleo diet is thrashing his body? Didn't know Paleo man took pills to help him stay Paleo.
Really dood... If the people reading this thread are to believe you over a PT and the author of a book, you ought to supply some credible studies instead of your pointless straw grabbing. And as numerous people have already told you, paleo is not a low-carb diet only...
On February 12 2012 22:02 eshlow wrote: Again, Paleo is not necessarily high or low carb.
Paleo, specifically higher protein and fat, don't suppress hunger but they do induce satiety through hormones such as ghrelin, leptin, cck, etc.
This is pointless.
You have no studies "debunking" Paleo so now you're just rambling about different people even though one (Robb) admits he is super stressed from traveling and should be focused on recovery factors.
Go find a vegan thread to post in so you can rant about Paleo here. You are making yourself look dumb since your arguments are terrible,
He is super stressed "from" traveling, or is he super stressed because the Paleo diet is thrashing his body? Didn't know Paleo man took pills to help him stay Paleo.
Really dood... If the people reading this thread are to believe you over a PT and the author of a book, you ought to supply some credible studies instead of your pointless straw grabbing. And as numerous people have already told you, paleo is not a low-carb diet only...
On February 12 2012 22:02 eshlow wrote: Again, Paleo is not necessarily high or low carb.
Paleo, specifically higher protein and fat, don't suppress hunger but they do induce satiety through hormones such as ghrelin, leptin, cck, etc.
This is pointless.
You have no studies "debunking" Paleo so now you're just rambling about different people even though one (Robb) admits he is super stressed from traveling and should be focused on recovery factors.
Go find a vegan thread to post in so you can rant about Paleo here. You are making yourself look dumb since your arguments are terrible,
He is super stressed "from" traveling, or is he super stressed because the Paleo diet is thrashing his body? Didn't know Paleo man took pills to help him stay Paleo.
Really dood... If the people reading this thread are to believe you over a PT and the author of a book, you ought to supply some credible studies instead of your pointless straw grabbing. And as numerous people have already told you, paleo is not a low-carb diet only...
Did you even read your link? lol at considering human ancestors before australopithecus. We might as well say in true paleo diet we should only eat plancton because we descend from fish -.- Also, check the "sources" the guy uses. Bullshit propaganda websites, not any real study. Srsly, stop posting retarded shit.
On February 12 2012 22:02 eshlow wrote: Again, Paleo is not necessarily high or low carb.
Paleo, specifically higher protein and fat, don't suppress hunger but they do induce satiety through hormones such as ghrelin, leptin, cck, etc.
This is pointless.
You have no studies "debunking" Paleo so now you're just rambling about different people even though one (Robb) admits he is super stressed from traveling and should be focused on recovery factors.
Go find a vegan thread to post in so you can rant about Paleo here. You are making yourself look dumb since your arguments are terrible,
He is super stressed "from" traveling, or is he super stressed because the Paleo diet is thrashing his body? Didn't know Paleo man took pills to help him stay Paleo.
Really dood... If the people reading this thread are to believe you over a PT and the author of a book, you ought to supply some credible studies instead of your pointless straw grabbing. And as numerous people have already told you, paleo is not a low-carb diet only...
Did you even read your link? lol at considering human ancestors before australopithecus. We might as well say in true paleo diet we should only eat plancton because we descend from fish -.- Also, check the "sources" the guy uses. Bullshit propaganda websites, not any real study. Srsly, stop posting retarded shit.
Are you suggesting plancton is easier to catch than it is to gather fruit from a tree? Are you suggesting it is easier to digest than fruit?
I'm going to try it, I have ulcerative colitis and attribute it to my bad diet. I'm only 18 years old and don't want it to develop into something worse. Thanks for this.
Okay, having tried going off grains, and getting carbs only from fruits, vegetables and the sugar in milk, I just don't see it as viable for eating 1200-1500 calories of carbs a day. I just can't eat that many potatoes. It's like 2.5-3 pounds of potatoes, plus some fruits. Is it something I have to adapt to? Or is it just simply easier to eat more carbs via bread and pasta than potato? How many people doing a ton of cardio can actually do paleo? My maintenance is about 3400 calories.
A year ago I tried a modified version of this given to me by a coach, and had issues with it. I felt like I had no energy during exercise (I was having to do a lot of 16km and 3x6km rows for training). I only tried it for a week, and the chicken breast at breakfast was killing me. This may have been as other people said that it was difficult to get enough carbs, but I was eating a ton of nuts as well (including peanuts which I had been told not to eat but yeah). For some reason my coach had also said lentils were fine but some of the info in the OP said you shouldn't?
On February 22 2012 03:10 Liquid`NonY wrote: Okay, having tried going off grains, and getting carbs only from fruits, vegetables and the sugar in milk, I just don't see it as viable for eating 1200-1500 calories of carbs a day. I just can't eat that many potatoes. It's like 2.5-3 pounds of potatoes, plus some fruits. Is it something I have to adapt to? Or is it just simply easier to eat more carbs via bread and pasta than potato? How many people doing a ton of cardio can actually do paleo? My maintenance is about 3400 calories.
On February 22 2012 04:54 Deadeight wrote: A year ago I tried a modified version of this given to me by a coach, and had issues with it. I felt like I had no energy during exercise (I was having to do a lot of 16km and 3x6km rows for training). I only tried it for a week, and the chicken breast at breakfast was killing me. This may have been as other people said that it was difficult to get enough carbs, but I was eating a ton of nuts as well (including peanuts which I had been told not to eat but yeah). For some reason my coach had also said lentils were fine but some of the info in the OP said you shouldn't?
It's MUCH harder to get that many carbs on Paleo.
If you are going to try to get more carbs I'd get it from "generally safe" starch such as white rice, and potatoes.
Most of the grain products, at least here in the US, like bread, pasta, etc. are highly refined and thus not very good for you.
I'm trying to bulk up right now so I'm eating a crapton of rice for my starch since I can't pound down the potatoes either (even though the potatoes taste better than rice).
Not strictly Paleo, but most Paleo people are coming around to the idea of safe starches overall. So there ya go. White rice FTW.
Ah, well I think the one I was given was intended to be low carbs till afternoon. It was high fat and high protein, and I was told something about if you don't have carbs in the morning you then end up burning more fat, which was why I wasn't supposed to be having peanuts.
Looking at OP info I'm not so sure it was really paleo and what I was doing is sounding more like crap. I'm also thinking now maybe my coach was trying to tell me to lose weight but wouldn't just say it. I'm not sure there was any sporting benefit from it.
I'm trying to bulk up right now so I'm eating a crapton of rice for my starch since I can't pound down the potatoes either (even though the potatoes taste better than rice).
May I ask what the reason is for your bulk? I can hardly imagine the benefits for a gymnast to be heavier, so what are you up to?
eshlow, i've seen a lot of paleo/diet info in general but i've yet to see a really good take of white rice v brown rice
i understand brown rice has phytic acid, which impacts the absorption of the extra minerals, but isn't white rice exactly what you said later in your post -- "highly refined"?
and if gluten's the problem will buying gluten-free wheat products solve it? and sprouted bread?
I had Popeye's 2 piece chicken for $.99 (Every Tuesday) today. My job also had a ceremony party where there was fruit punch and a big slice of white cake with lime/pineapple like candy inside with white icing on top.
I couldn't resist...
It tasted so good, but yet I know it's so bad for my body. They offered "seconds" for the cake/punch but I had to reject it because I know I already "sinned" for the day. How do you guys live with not eating delicious, but yet bad foods.
I'm trying to bulk up right now so I'm eating a crapton of rice for my starch since I can't pound down the potatoes either (even though the potatoes taste better than rice).
May I ask what the reason is for your bulk? I can hardly imagine the benefits for a gymnast to be heavier, so what are you up to?
I'm acutally pretty light for my height (5'8" 135) and I've been want to bulk up for a while just tried to recover first so I could acually do harder workouts. But iit seems OK so far and I'm still recovering slightly.
I'd like to get up to 150 or so if not a bit heavier. Will be better for my strength/weight ratio overall
On February 22 2012 09:36 KamMoye wrote: eshlow, i've seen a lot of paleo/diet info in general but i've yet to see a really good take of white rice v brown rice
i understand brown rice has phytic acid, which impacts the absorption of the extra minerals, but isn't white rice exactly what you said later in your post -- "highly refined"?
and if gluten's the problem will buying gluten-free wheat products solve it? and sprouted bread?
The Jaminet's aren't strictly Paleo but have a pretty good take on things:
On February 22 2012 09:42 Silentness wrote: I feel like I committed many "sins" today.
I had Popeye's 2 piece chicken for $.99 (Every Tuesday) today. My job also had a ceremony party where there was fruit punch and a big slice of white cake with lime/pineapple like candy inside with white icing on top.
I couldn't resist...
It tasted so good, but yet I know it's so bad for my body. They offered "seconds" for the cake/punch but I had to reject it because I know I already "sinned" for the day. How do you guys live with not eating delicious, but yet bad foods.
Once you get used to eating clean and good at making your own food you don't need to eat other stuff.
However, generally speaking, don't feel bad if you "cheat" every once in a while. I drink a soda occasionally or have a piece of cake (though my intestines usually regret that). Enjoy your food and don't obsess.
As long as you're eating clean at least 80% of the time (well, I prefer 95% of the time as the number) you get most of the benefits of eating well.
On February 22 2012 09:42 Silentness wrote: I feel like I committed many "sins" today.
I had Popeye's 2 piece chicken for $.99 (Every Tuesday) today. My job also had a ceremony party where there was fruit punch and a big slice of white cake with lime/pineapple like candy inside with white icing on top.
I couldn't resist...
It tasted so good, but yet I know it's so bad for my body. They offered "seconds" for the cake/punch but I had to reject it because I know I already "sinned" for the day. How do you guys live with not eating delicious, but yet bad foods.
On February 22 2012 03:10 Liquid`NonY wrote: Okay, having tried going off grains, and getting carbs only from fruits, vegetables and the sugar in milk, I just don't see it as viable for eating 1200-1500 calories of carbs a day. I just can't eat that many potatoes. It's like 2.5-3 pounds of potatoes, plus some fruits. Is it something I have to adapt to? Or is it just simply easier to eat more carbs via bread and pasta than potato? How many people doing a ton of cardio can actually do paleo? My maintenance is about 3400 calories.
The idea is to get the majority of your calories through healthy fat and stay low carb.
On February 22 2012 03:10 Liquid`NonY wrote: Okay, having tried going off grains, and getting carbs only from fruits, vegetables and the sugar in milk, I just don't see it as viable for eating 1200-1500 calories of carbs a day. I just can't eat that many potatoes. It's like 2.5-3 pounds of potatoes, plus some fruits. Is it something I have to adapt to? Or is it just simply easier to eat more carbs via bread and pasta than potato? How many people doing a ton of cardio can actually do paleo? My maintenance is about 3400 calories.
The idea is to get the majority of your calories through healthy fat and stay low carb.
Nony is A runner, and endurance athletes are not that much into low carbs. Besides that, the Paleo-diet as eshlow teaches it to the masses in here is not low carb. It just happens to be lower in carb since there is not much calories in vegetables (and even fruits for that matter).
The paleo diet is very questionable. Yes, grains are typically bad for you and humans have only been eating them for about 10k years. But high fat/high protein diets and calorie-restricting diets are way fucking worse for you than eating lots of rice bread and pasta.
Now you ask for evidence. Studies. Peer reviewed research. HERE IT IS:
"The largest and most comprehensive study ever done on human diet":
The study's conclusion? The optimal diet for human consumption is a high-carb, low fat, low protein, plant-based diet.
Oh, and the guy who said that humans are biologically designed as FRUGIVORES (fruit based diet)? He might be on to something. I won't go into details because this is much more complicated.
So here are pictures of 30+ people who have been eating high calorie (3k+ minimum) high carb FRUIT AND VEG ONLY diets for YEARS. According to traditional diet beliefs, they're probably morbidly obese, half-dead and comatose...
Just wanted to throw this info out there so that hopefully some people don't get misled by a lot of terrible unscientific health advice people learn from protein powder and supplement advertisements, oprah tv shows, and magic diet comercials. If you're interested, do the research and decide for yourself.
And if you're gonna reply to this because you found something to criticise, go ahead. I probably wont respond.
"Hey guys, I come in here with a wikipedia-link to show you that what you guys are doing is stupid. Also, here is a link of a fit human being eating no meat. Shocking, right? That such a thing exists completely shows how Paleo is horrible. By the way, if you have criticism, I don't give a fuck and just won't bother responding to you"
Fur fucks sake. I don't eat Paleo, and I am not even 100% convinced that it is the way to go. And I am disgusted by those Paleo websites which sell supplements to eat like a caveman (ROFL). But the guys coming in here to argue against Paleo are arguing on such an embarassing level, it is just pathetic. They basically give us nothing. If you would like to refuse Paleo, come up with studies which show that grains are actually good for humans, because Paleo is above everything else against grains (and on a broader view against processed products in general, which makes the concept of the diet very broad, which would be one of my criticisms actually).
edit: Besides all the ranting, I am gonna check out this China Study, it looks definitely interesting to read about. Noone should say I am not open-minded. Everyone telling me that potatoes are awesome and the cure for everything has my vote
On February 25 2012 18:06 MadProbe wrote: The paleo diet is very questionable. Yes, grains are typically bad for you and humans have only been eating them for about 10k years. But high fat/high protein diets and calorie-restricting diets are way fucking worse for you than eating lots of rice bread and pasta.
Now you ask for evidence. Studies. Peer reviewed research. HERE IT IS:
"The largest and most comprehensive study ever done on human diet":
The study's conclusion? The optimal diet for human consumption is a high-carb, low fat, low protein, plant-based diet.
Oh, and the guy who said that humans are biologically designed as FRUGIVORES (fruit based diet)? He might be on to something. I won't go into details because this is much more complicated.
So here are pictures of 30+ people who have been eating high calorie (3k+ minimum) high carb FRUIT AND VEG ONLY diets for YEARS. According to traditional diet beliefs, they're probably morbidly obese, half-dead and comatose...
Just wanted to throw this info out there so that hopefully some people don't get misled by a lot of terrible unscientific health advice people learn from protein powder and supplement advertisements, oprah tv shows, and magic diet comercials. If you're interested, do the research and decide for yourself.
And if you're gonna reply to this because you found something to criticise, go ahead. I probably wont respond.
So what you're saying is that you want to voice your opinion and then ignore all others?
Great! This discussion ended before it even started, and based on the contents of your post, that's probably for the best. If you want to eat a "high carb FRUIT AND VEG ONLY diet" be my guest. Just realize that anybody with any sense whatsoever will see your opinion for what it really is: worthless.
On February 25 2012 18:06 MadProbe wrote: The paleo diet is very questionable. Yes, grains are typically bad for you and humans have only been eating them for about 10k years. But high fat/high protein diets and calorie-restricting diets are way fucking worse for you than eating lots of rice bread and pasta.
Now you ask for evidence. Studies. Peer reviewed research. HERE IT IS:
"The largest and most comprehensive study ever done on human diet":
The study's conclusion? The optimal diet for human consumption is a high-carb, low fat, low protein, plant-based diet.
Oh, and the guy who said that humans are biologically designed as FRUGIVORES (fruit based diet)? He might be on to something. I won't go into details because this is much more complicated.
So here are pictures of 30+ people who have been eating high calorie (3k+ minimum) high carb FRUIT AND VEG ONLY diets for YEARS. According to traditional diet beliefs, they're probably morbidly obese, half-dead and comatose...
Just wanted to throw this info out there so that hopefully some people don't get misled by a lot of terrible unscientific health advice people learn from protein powder and supplement advertisements, oprah tv shows, and magic diet comercials. If you're interested, do the research and decide for yourself.
And if you're gonna reply to this because you found something to criticise, go ahead. I probably wont respond.
They just look unnatural to me. Real strong men don't look like that at all. From the looks of it, you go on that diet if you want to be all show. I'll certainly take my healthy fats for brain and body growth over that crap regardless.
On February 25 2012 18:06 MadProbe wrote: The paleo diet is very questionable. Yes, grains are typically bad for you and humans have only been eating them for about 10k years. But high fat/high protein diets and calorie-restricting diets are way fucking worse for you than eating lots of rice bread and pasta.
Now you ask for evidence. Studies. Peer reviewed research. HERE IT IS:
"The largest and most comprehensive study ever done on human diet":
The study's conclusion? The optimal diet for human consumption is a high-carb, low fat, low protein, plant-based diet.
Oh, and the guy who said that humans are biologically designed as FRUGIVORES (fruit based diet)? He might be on to something. I won't go into details because this is much more complicated.
So here are pictures of 30+ people who have been eating high calorie (3k+ minimum) high carb FRUIT AND VEG ONLY diets for YEARS. According to traditional diet beliefs, they're probably morbidly obese, half-dead and comatose...
Just wanted to throw this info out there so that hopefully some people don't get misled by a lot of terrible unscientific health advice people learn from protein powder and supplement advertisements, oprah tv shows, and magic diet comercials. If you're interested, do the research and decide for yourself.
And if you're gonna reply to this because you found something to criticise, go ahead. I probably wont respond.
They just look unnatural to me. Real strong men don't look like that at all. From the looks of it, you go on that diet if you want to be all show. I'll certainly take my healthy fats for brain and body growth over that crap regardless.
On February 25 2012 18:06 MadProbe wrote: The paleo diet is very questionable. Yes, grains are typically bad for you and humans have only been eating them for about 10k years. But high fat/high protein diets and calorie-restricting diets are way fucking worse for you than eating lots of rice bread and pasta.
Now you ask for evidence. Studies. Peer reviewed research. HERE IT IS:
"The largest and most comprehensive study ever done on human diet":
The study's conclusion? The optimal diet for human consumption is a high-carb, low fat, low protein, plant-based diet.
Oh, and the guy who said that humans are biologically designed as FRUGIVORES (fruit based diet)? He might be on to something. I won't go into details because this is much more complicated.
So here are pictures of 30+ people who have been eating high calorie (3k+ minimum) high carb FRUIT AND VEG ONLY diets for YEARS. According to traditional diet beliefs, they're probably morbidly obese, half-dead and comatose...
Just wanted to throw this info out there so that hopefully some people don't get misled by a lot of terrible unscientific health advice people learn from protein powder and supplement advertisements, oprah tv shows, and magic diet comercials. If you're interested, do the research and decide for yourself.
And if you're gonna reply to this because you found something to criticise, go ahead. I probably wont respond.
You know what the funny thing about The China Study is?
So Campbell writes up the thing.
Denise Minger and other people run the stats from the study again, and it doesn't actually show what Campbell claims.
Peopel criticize Minger for incorrect analysis.... but what about Campbell's analysis of what was wrong in the first place?
The simple fact of the matter is looking at the stats from various points of view, there isn't a significant impact of meat et al on CVD (there is some, but not a whole lot). The biggest impact on CVD from the study was GRAINS GRAINS GRAINS. HUGE correlation with grains and CVD.
I don't have a problem with eating a lot of fruit on Paleo.... I wish people would actually read the damn OP because you can eat tons of fruits and vegetables on Paleo and it's still healthy.
Again, Paleo is neither low carb or high carb.., you can make it what you want by adding in more carbs if they need to.
In modern hunter-gatherer diets, dietary protein is characteristically elevated (19–35% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrate (22–40% of energy)
2000 kcal diet that's:
95g-175g of protein (hmmm... seems eeriely familiar to around .75-1g/lbs that people recommend for ATHLETIC populations... as you know hunter gatherers actually have to move around to get their food and hunt...). And they didn't have chronic kidney disease either!
110g-200g of carbohydrates -- which is not even low carb at all. This is what moderate carbohydrates look like, unless you are competing in an endurance sport which you may need upwards of 250g+ of carbs (which is 50% carbs). Low carb is <100g and ketogenic IIRC is <40-50 carbs or thereabouts.
On February 25 2012 18:06 MadProbe wrote: The paleo diet is very questionable. Yes, grains are typically bad for you and humans have only been eating them for about 10k years. But high fat/high protein diets and calorie-restricting diets are way fucking worse for you than eating lots of rice bread and pasta.
Now you ask for evidence. Studies. Peer reviewed research. HERE IT IS:
"The largest and most comprehensive study ever done on human diet":
The study's conclusion? The optimal diet for human consumption is a high-carb, low fat, low protein, plant-based diet.
Oh, and the guy who said that humans are biologically designed as FRUGIVORES (fruit based diet)? He might be on to something. I won't go into details because this is much more complicated.
So here are pictures of 30+ people who have been eating high calorie (3k+ minimum) high carb FRUIT AND VEG ONLY diets for YEARS. According to traditional diet beliefs, they're probably morbidly obese, half-dead and comatose...
Just wanted to throw this info out there so that hopefully some people don't get misled by a lot of terrible unscientific health advice people learn from protein powder and supplement advertisements, oprah tv shows, and magic diet comercials. If you're interested, do the research and decide for yourself.
And if you're gonna reply to this because you found something to criticise, go ahead. I probably wont respond.
You call paleo diet questionable than go on a rave about a diet that is completely paleo friendly. Paleo has nothing against eating fruits and veggies. Also, you linked wikipedia to a heavily misinterpreted study. And then linked a bunch of fragile looking people with no fat. I mean they look muscular and all...just so small
Tried this diet for about a month because a friend at the gym recommended it to me. Lost about 7 lbs of body fat (already kinda lean) which is good, but I don't think I can continue with just eat meat and veggies all the time. I am missing things like sandwiches and pizza hardcore lol. Never thought I would lose my appetite for meat and btw I am eating all kinds of fish and meat products. Gotta finish up my 30 day challenge with a visit to the doctor. But yeah I recommend this diet if you want to lose body fat or gain muscle.
Wierd, when i go paleo for a couple weeks i lose any cravings for stuff like pizza and bread, dont think i could ever be sick of meat. Congrats on your success!
On February 29 2012 06:15 xavra41 wrote: Tried this diet for about a month because a friend at the gym recommended it to me. Lost about 7 lbs of body fat (already kinda lean) which is good, but I don't think I can continue with just eat meat and veggies all the time. I am missing things like sandwiches and pizza hardcore lol. Never thought I would lose my appetite for meat and btw I am eating all kinds of fish and meat products. Gotta finish up my 30 day challenge with a visit to the doctor. But yeah I recommend this diet if you want to lose body fat or gain muscle.
I think you are just not eating enough, cause 7 pounds is a lot (I assume you where quite overweight to begin with?). If you want to remain healthy you can still eat crap once a week on an decent time window (say 12 hours after a good breakfast), usually during the weekend. Some people even say the calorie spike is good for you.
Is crack Paleo, because Chinese sausage is almost certainly loaded with it; sooooooo good. In all seriousness it's probably fine very occasionally. I'd imagine there are all sorts of fillers and stuff in it and the pigs are fed and treated pretty poorly.
In other news, the cashier at the supermarket the other day told me, "Wow, that's a ton of sweet potatoes!" I refrained from telling him it's just for my 3 PW meals next week.
On February 25 2012 18:06 MadProbe wrote: The paleo diet is very questionable. Yes, grains are typically bad for you and humans have only been eating them for about 10k years. But high fat/high protein diets and calorie-restricting diets are way fucking worse for you than eating lots of rice bread and pasta.
Now you ask for evidence. Studies. Peer reviewed research. HERE IT IS:
"The largest and most comprehensive study ever done on human diet":
The study's conclusion? The optimal diet for human consumption is a high-carb, low fat, low protein, plant-based diet.
Oh, and the guy who said that humans are biologically designed as FRUGIVORES (fruit based diet)? He might be on to something. I won't go into details because this is much more complicated.
So here are pictures of 30+ people who have been eating high calorie (3k+ minimum) high carb FRUIT AND VEG ONLY diets for YEARS. According to traditional diet beliefs, they're probably morbidly obese, half-dead and comatose...
Just wanted to throw this info out there so that hopefully some people don't get misled by a lot of terrible unscientific health advice people learn from protein powder and supplement advertisements, oprah tv shows, and magic diet comercials. If you're interested, do the research and decide for yourself.
And if you're gonna reply to this because you found something to criticise, go ahead. I probably wont respond.
They just look unnatural to me. Real strong men don't look like that at all. From the looks of it, you go on that diet if you want to be all show. I'll certainly take my healthy fats for brain and body growth over that crap regardless.
They don't look "unnatural" at all wtf are you looking at. Some of them are very lean, but for the most part they also have well defined musculature. I'd trade my body for theirs any day. As someone pointed out however, they are basically on a paleo diet anyway. Their results are based on the same principles as paleo - stop eating shit, start eating real food and do some kind of exercise and you will look amazing.
On February 25 2012 18:06 MadProbe wrote: The paleo diet is very questionable. Yes, grains are typically bad for you and humans have only been eating them for about 10k years. But high fat/high protein diets and calorie-restricting diets are way fucking worse for you than eating lots of rice bread and pasta.
Now you ask for evidence. Studies. Peer reviewed research. HERE IT IS:
"The largest and most comprehensive study ever done on human diet":
The study's conclusion? The optimal diet for human consumption is a high-carb, low fat, low protein, plant-based diet.
Oh, and the guy who said that humans are biologically designed as FRUGIVORES (fruit based diet)? He might be on to something. I won't go into details because this is much more complicated.
So here are pictures of 30+ people who have been eating high calorie (3k+ minimum) high carb FRUIT AND VEG ONLY diets for YEARS. According to traditional diet beliefs, they're probably morbidly obese, half-dead and comatose...
Just wanted to throw this info out there so that hopefully some people don't get misled by a lot of terrible unscientific health advice people learn from protein powder and supplement advertisements, oprah tv shows, and magic diet comercials. If you're interested, do the research and decide for yourself.
And if you're gonna reply to this because you found something to criticise, go ahead. I probably wont respond.
They just look unnatural to me. Real strong men don't look like that at all. From the looks of it, you go on that diet if you want to be all show. I'll certainly take my healthy fats for brain and body growth over that crap regardless.
They don't look "unnatural" at all wtf are you looking at. Some of them are very lean, but for the most part they also have well defined musculature. I'd trade my body for theirs any day. As someone pointed out however, they are basically on a paleo diet anyway. Their results are based on the same principles as paleo - stop eating shit, start eating real food and do some kind of exercise and you will look amazing.
They just have very little weight on them, probably due to lack of calories. Yeah they have very very low bf% so you can see their musculature but they have no mass to them and their proportions seem off...it just looks weird IMO.
On February 25 2012 18:06 MadProbe wrote: The paleo diet is very questionable. Yes, grains are typically bad for you and humans have only been eating them for about 10k years. But high fat/high protein diets and calorie-restricting diets are way fucking worse for you than eating lots of rice bread and pasta.
Now you ask for evidence. Studies. Peer reviewed research. HERE IT IS:
"The largest and most comprehensive study ever done on human diet":
The study's conclusion? The optimal diet for human consumption is a high-carb, low fat, low protein, plant-based diet.
Oh, and the guy who said that humans are biologically designed as FRUGIVORES (fruit based diet)? He might be on to something. I won't go into details because this is much more complicated.
So here are pictures of 30+ people who have been eating high calorie (3k+ minimum) high carb FRUIT AND VEG ONLY diets for YEARS. According to traditional diet beliefs, they're probably morbidly obese, half-dead and comatose...
Just wanted to throw this info out there so that hopefully some people don't get misled by a lot of terrible unscientific health advice people learn from protein powder and supplement advertisements, oprah tv shows, and magic diet comercials. If you're interested, do the research and decide for yourself.
And if you're gonna reply to this because you found something to criticise, go ahead. I probably wont respond.
They just look unnatural to me. Real strong men don't look like that at all. From the looks of it, you go on that diet if you want to be all show. I'll certainly take my healthy fats for brain and body growth over that crap regardless.
They don't look "unnatural" at all wtf are you looking at. Some of them are very lean, but for the most part they also have well defined musculature. I'd trade my body for theirs any day. As someone pointed out however, they are basically on a paleo diet anyway. Their results are based on the same principles as paleo - stop eating shit, start eating real food and do some kind of exercise and you will look amazing.
They just have very little weight on them, probably due to lack of calories. Yeah they have very very low bf% so you can see their musculature but they have no mass to them and their proportions seem off...it just looks weird IMO.
Exactly my thoughts actually. Some of them look really good, but most just don't have any weight on them, so the super defined musculature really doesn't mean that they are muscular, they just have very low bodyfat.
On March 20 2012 12:32 Bigtony wrote: They don't look "unnatural" at all wtf are you looking at. Some of them are very lean, but for the most part they also have well defined musculature. I'd trade my body for theirs any day. As someone pointed out however, they are basically on a paleo diet anyway. Their results are based on the same principles as paleo - stop eating shit, start eating real food and do some kind of exercise and you will look amazing.
That is what I personally think and I'm not saying they are unhealthy or they aren't getting what they wanted out of their diet. I just think having too low of a bodyfat doesn't look natural to me. If that is your thing, just like theirs, then that's cool with me and I wouldn't judge you for doing what you want to do. I just find the looks of true strength to be more appealing than a super low body fat percentage.
On February 25 2012 18:06 MadProbe wrote: The paleo diet is very questionable. Yes, grains are typically bad for you and humans have only been eating them for about 10k years. But high fat/high protein diets and calorie-restricting diets are way fucking worse for you than eating lots of rice bread and pasta.
Now you ask for evidence. Studies. Peer reviewed research. HERE IT IS:
"The largest and most comprehensive study ever done on human diet":
The study's conclusion? The optimal diet for human consumption is a high-carb, low fat, low protein, plant-based diet.
Oh, and the guy who said that humans are biologically designed as FRUGIVORES (fruit based diet)? He might be on to something. I won't go into details because this is much more complicated.
So here are pictures of 30+ people who have been eating high calorie (3k+ minimum) high carb FRUIT AND VEG ONLY diets for YEARS. According to traditional diet beliefs, they're probably morbidly obese, half-dead and comatose...
Just wanted to throw this info out there so that hopefully some people don't get misled by a lot of terrible unscientific health advice people learn from protein powder and supplement advertisements, oprah tv shows, and magic diet comercials. If you're interested, do the research and decide for yourself.
And if you're gonna reply to this because you found something to criticise, go ahead. I probably wont respond.
Actually, Lyle Mcdonald directly (kinda) talks about The China study. Apparently he changed/skewed/ignored the facts when they didn't fit the study.
So if you're interested do the research for yourself
Also, I think a lot of studies show nothing wrong with fructose and the like. I don't care much about nutrition, but this is just what I remember from various sites I visit.
Favorite response: "This contest is an intellectually shallow tactic for vegetarians/vegans to justify their unnatural dietary practices by inserting morality where it doesn't belong. Our evolutionary history is littered with hundreds of thousands of years' worth of delicious corpses; trying to have a discussion about the "ethics" of our biologically hard-wired needs is simply absurd. Relevant: The amount of resources that go into the manufacture and distribution of clothing is unconscionable, especially considering the energy and water shortages our planet will likely have to contend with in the near future. In 600 words or less, tell us why it's ethical to wear clothes."
On February 25 2012 18:06 MadProbe wrote: The paleo diet is very questionable. Yes, grains are typically bad for you and humans have only been eating them for about 10k years. But high fat/high protein diets and calorie-restricting diets are way fucking worse for you than eating lots of rice bread and pasta.
Now you ask for evidence. Studies. Peer reviewed research. HERE IT IS:
"The largest and most comprehensive study ever done on human diet":
The study's conclusion? The optimal diet for human consumption is a high-carb, low fat, low protein, plant-based diet.
The china study in the end is just one big observational study. There are different levels of evidence in medical reasoning and observational studies are at the bottom of that hierarchy, whereas randomized control trials and good meta analyses sit the top.
There is a pretty good critique written by Denise Minger, who points out statistical flaws and generally false conclusions that were drawn (due to some pretty whacky reasoning) when conducting the study:
Personally, I've had okay results with paleo but nothing really spectacular. For weight loss I've had the most success with calorie restriction, upping my "incidental exercise" and intermittent fasting via leangains (Which is pretty much semi-paleo).
My favourite paleo blogger is Dr.Kurt Harris. He doesn't seem as crazy or fanatical as some other paleo bloggers and he backs up his statements with well reasoned arguments.
On April 20 2012 07:44 Pulimuli wrote: going paleo tomorrow again, did it last summer but i think im gonna stick with it this time!
been stuffing my face with bread all day as a goodbye
I've been semi-paleo all year long (been eating corn, tortillas, beans, and 1 slice of pizza/few weeks =(), but I think this summer I'll go back to what I was doing last summer, which is full paleo, only exception being 1/2 gomad. Should be fun, should still be possible to pack on weight. I'll cut the milk back when I reach my goal weight (30 pounds away woohoo).
Need delicious paleo recipes that I can feed myself and impress friends with, I have a crock pot and a frying pan and that's it, but I'm willing to learn and to buy stuff.
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 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.
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 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)
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)
Of course, since the vege thread is back I gotta bring this back with some more studies supporting Paleo...
I'm interested to see where the science takes us because there's more mentions of Paleo in the literature.... though I'm always confused as most people refer to Paleo as a low carb diet. Meh. Oh well.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
On May 13 2012 12:49 eshlow wrote: Oh great more straw mans.
How about we just leave this topic alone if you're not going to try to educate on anything and just mischaracterize everything.
Lol. The pot calling the kettle black.
Same to you, sir.
If you "know so much" but can't "inform us" without spewing logical fallacies, then there's no real point to discussion.
I actually tried to be reasonable in my last few posts, but if that's the way you guys wanna play it just stay out of the thread because you're wasting everyone's time.
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.
I just said people are dying of starvation, idk if you can't read or are just a troll. The point is your argument about farming techniques is not relevant. The problem of starvation and hunger worldwide is one of logistics (the food is not in the right place at the right time), not one of quantity. We could switch to plants that are better for us and have the same quantity available.
Other animals have a lower impact on the environment and create higher yields. Cattle are a very inefficient source of meat, it's why they are not really raised in great quantity outside of select areas (typically places with lots of very flat, empty land).
Grains are very rich in nutrients and grains have a very rich taste with lots of variations when it comes to taste. I guess you guys also dont enjoy a good beer considering most of them are made with grains. Grains is to food what beer is to alcohol, both have an amazing taste and a lot of possibly variations that add to their natural flavor. Adding honey to oats for example tend to give them a nice smooth buttery subtle texture and give the highs a nice mellow natural sweet flavor and the lows a creamier honey like grain texture. It also leaves a pleasant sweet and oaty after taste.
Also, the reasons why people didnt die from many of todays diseases is because they didnt live as long. Most people didnt make it past 30 when hunting/gathering played a big role in survival. I just got done eating some oat grains actually and checked the nutiritional facts and its loaded with vitamins, I dont know of many vegtables and/or fruits that have as many vitamins as a serving of grains.
I'm sorry if some people view this post as an attempt at trolling but to me personally, calling grains the main source of disease in todays society and calling them unhealthly are extremely laughable and I find it humerous that people actually believe anything what they read on the internet without using logic as to why people didnt die from diseases that are caused primarly by aging when the average life expenctency in the hunter/gather days was under 30.
On May 17 2012 08:59 AoN.DimSum wrote: how are grains good when it causes my eczema? what nutrients does grains have that veggies dont?
btw the avg life expectancy for hunter gatherers are so low is because a huge percentage die before 5 years old.
Ever hear of food allergies? I want to see some proof of your claim of why the average life expectancy of hungers/gathers was low because the average age of death was before age 5.
On May 17 2012 08:59 AoN.DimSum wrote: how are grains good when it causes my eczema? what nutrients does grains have that veggies dont?
btw the avg life expectancy for hunter gatherers are so low is because a huge percentage die before 5 years old.
Ever hear of food allergies? I want to see some proof of your claim of why the average life expectancy of hungers/gathers was low because the average age of death was before age 5.
Death at birth or in infant stages were ridiculously high as early as 100 years ago. Even so much more in the times before the word medicine or drugs were invented
People still died of old age. It was just very rare. You needed to have good luck and good genes.
But the point is, if you need to gather your own food from nature, you can't overeat. Today many many people don't get any exercise at all. And you can buy tons and tons of delicious high calorie foods at the supermarket. We are hardcoded to crave high calorie food and eat as much of it as fits in our stomach. And our stomach will even stretch and when it is empty enough, you will feel the need to fill it.
On May 17 2012 08:38 Sovern wrote: Grains are very rich in nutrients and grains have a very rich taste with lots of variations when it comes to taste. I guess you guys also dont enjoy a good beer considering most of them are made with grains. Grains is to food what beer is to alcohol, both have an amazing taste and a lot of possibly variations that add to their natural flavor. Adding honey to oats for example tend to give them a nice smooth buttery subtle texture and give the highs a nice mellow natural sweet flavor and the lows a creamier honey like grain texture. It also leaves a pleasant sweet and oaty after taste.
Also, the reasons why people didnt die from many of todays diseases is because they didnt live as long. Most people didnt make it past 30 when hunting/gathering played a big role in survival. I just got done eating some oat grains actually and checked the nutiritional facts and its loaded with vitamins, I dont know of many vegtables and/or fruits that have as many vitamins as a serving of grains.
I'm sorry if some people view this post as an attempt at trolling but to me personally, calling grains the main source of disease in todays society and calling them unhealthly are extremely laughable and I find it humerous that people actually believe anything what they read on the internet without using logic as to why people didnt die from diseases that are caused primarly by aging when the average life expenctency in the hunter/gather days was under 30.
Nobody argued whether or not grains taste good. That is purely preference. Beer is awesome. It's also not very good for you.
The age thing has already been talked about in this thread. (or maybe the vegetarian one?)
Fruits and veggies are packed with vitamins, i dont know what you're talking about. And most grains have vitamins artificially added to them for that nutritional value, they dont come that way.
It doesn't really matter how old people on the African savannah could become.
The highest life expectancy today is in Japan. The reason is their diet. They eat fish, vegetables, rice, beans, seaweed, seafood and they do it in small portions. Pretty much the anti-thesis of what the early humans and homonids in Africa ate.
On May 25 2012 05:40 Miyoshino wrote: It doesn't really matter how old people on the African savannah could become.
The highest life expectancy today is in Japan. The reason is their diet. They eat fish, vegetables, rice, beans, seaweed, seafood and they do it in small portions. Pretty much the anti-thesis of what the early humans and homonids in Africa ate.
lol, grasping for straws...
Longevity is only a subset of health, and doesn't define all of what "health" is. However, I'll refute the point anyway.
Recent studies show that longevity has very strong genetic components, especially in centenarians.
Of course, behavioral modifications like diet and exercise still matter. You still need a good diet, and fish is a good quality protein and omega 3 fat source just like any other grass fed animals are.
Yes, but the genetic variation favouring old age in Japanese or any other people will be the same, you silly. This hits the fundamental idea of Paleo. If it were right, the food the Japanese eat must be the least healthy because it's the least like paleo people's diet.
On May 25 2012 08:20 Miyoshino wrote: Yes, but the genetic variation favouring old age in Japanese or any other people will be the same, you silly. This hits the fundamental idea of Paleo. If it were right, the food the Japanese eat must be the least healthy because it's the least like paleo people's diet.
Talk about drawing at straws.
They eat healthy meats, fruits, and vegetables. That sounds exactly like what paleo endorses.
Maybe he likes science and dislikes conspiracy theories. Anyway, your airheadedness was funny 5 years ago decaf. It's 2012 now and your clowning now got annoying.
Yes, but the genetic variation favouring old age in Japanese or any other people will be the same, you silly. This hits the fundamental idea of Paleo. If it were right, the food the Japanese eat must be the least healthy because it's the least like paleo people's diet.
Talk about drawing at straws.
Maybe he likes science and dislikes conspiracy theories. Anyway, your airheadedness was funny 5 years ago decaf. It's 2012 now and your clowning now got annoying.
You are really trying hard to get yourself banned again here.
On May 25 2012 19:13 Miyoshino wrote: Maybe he likes science and dislikes conspiracy theories. Anyway, your airheadedness was funny 5 years ago decaf. It's 2012 now and your clowning now got annoying.
Of course, since the vege thread is back I gotta bring this back with some more studies supporting Paleo...
I'm interested to see where the science takes us because there's more mentions of Paleo in the literature.... though I'm always confused as most people refer to Paleo as a low carb diet. Meh. Oh well.
And the post right after you posted this:
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.
The last study in the above group even backs up the rationale:
If Paleo is has a poor rationale or does poorly against other diets in studies and science then I assume you have the studies to back it up....? Oh what is that? You don't?
All you have is whining that grains are not bad and nuts are? That's not science.
I even pointed out the science -- genes -- are the major factor behind longevity, not meat vs fish nutrition like you claimed.
Oh well... maybe you can actually post some sciences... or you know.... go troll another thread with baseless statements.
Also, LOL at Paleo being a conspiracy theory. Now I've heard it all.
Sheesh, this is worse than talking with a creationist of 9/11 truther.
Nice straw man. You say you can eat unlimited nuts but no seeds. I called you out on that. Your problem, ot mine. You make all these threads but apparently you know nothing about nutrition and probably very little about fitness as well. Your advice on anything you give here should be considered outright dangerous. Imo, a mod should delete every since post you made on this board. And yes, gluten causing all these diseases like Alzheimer, that is a conspiracy theory. Now I understand why people call paleo dioet a sect.
Prove it. Find a quote of me saying this exact thing. You can't because it's a straw man.
I have never said anyone can eat unlimited nuts, and I have recommended seeds.
You make all these threads but apparently you know nothing about nutrition and probably very little about fitness as well.
TL wouldn't have me as a thread starter if I was putting up fake information, so I would think it's more like you know little about nutrition and fitness.
Your advice on anything you give here should be considered outright dangerous. Imo, a mod should delete every since post you made on this board.
lol, ok.
And yes, gluten causing all these diseases like Alzheimer, that is a conspiracy theory. Now I understand why people call paleo dioet a sect.
It's too bad that you're just biased and wrong.
Gluten is bad because gliadin stimulates T-cell autoimmune activation against transglutaminase enzyme.
If you take a look at the literature aside from the above study that directly links gluten, transglutaminase and Alzheimer's, you'll see that there is highly increased activity of transglutaminase in chronic neurological degenerative diseases. Like I said, do any type of search with the chronic neurological degenerative diseases and you'll see the relationships.
Honestly, it truly is a pity that people are blinded to the science just because they believe what the government tells them about how grains are healthy.
And yes, you are a troll because you present no scientific facts and are just here to spout out opposing points because you think Paleo is a cult when it is based on a solid scientific groundwork that is starting to become evident in the literature.
thanks for the bump eshlow. read through the entire thing to familiarize myself with the diet and the reasoning behind it.
on a side note, i've been trying to slowly cut processed grains out of my diet. im a huge lover of pasta, noodles, ramen, bread, etc, but it hasn't been too difficult slowly phasing them out in favor of just plain old real food with white rice for carbs/energy. of course, sometimes ill go and indulge in some delicious linguine with a light cream sauce (throw in some shrooms, sun dried tomatoes, basil, and chicken.... fuck) but it'll only be once in a while.
On September 06 2012 06:30 ieatkids5 wrote: thanks for the bump eshlow. read through the entire thing to familiarize myself with the diet and the reasoning behind it.
on a side note, i've been trying to slowly cut processed grains out of my diet. im a huge lover of pasta, noodles, ramen, bread, etc, but it hasn't been too difficult slowly phasing them out in favor of just plain old real food with white rice for carbs/energy. of course, sometimes ill go and indulge in some delicious linguine with a light cream sauce (throw in some shrooms, sun dried tomatoes, basil, and chicken.... fuck) but it'll only be once in a while.
Have you noticed any changes in general health/energy/etc after cleaning everything up?
The girlfriend has just gone gluten free (not quite paleo) in a bid to take on various health issues - basically been slapped with the chronic fatigue syndrome label. Seems to be going well so far. I like my bread though so i don't think i can handle paleo.
On September 06 2012 06:30 ieatkids5 wrote: thanks for the bump eshlow. read through the entire thing to familiarize myself with the diet and the reasoning behind it.
on a side note, i've been trying to slowly cut processed grains out of my diet. im a huge lover of pasta, noodles, ramen, bread, etc, but it hasn't been too difficult slowly phasing them out in favor of just plain old real food with white rice for carbs/energy. of course, sometimes ill go and indulge in some delicious linguine with a light cream sauce (throw in some shrooms, sun dried tomatoes, basil, and chicken.... fuck) but it'll only be once in a while.
Have you noticed any changes in general health/energy/etc after cleaning everything up?
to be honest, i'm really not sure for two main reasons. first is that the process of phasing out wheat/grains/processed foods has been gradual, and even now, i'm still eating bread or other processed food every now and then. i cant really objectively take my state of health a year ago and compare it to how i feel now. i cant say ive felt any drastic changes... non-processed meats and vegetables have been part of my diet for a long time (because of my parents' cooking and they passed it on to me), so it's not like my diet changed THAT much compared to people who are eating mcdonalds, junk food, and soft drinks every day.
the second reason is that the main determinant of how healthy i feel is the status of my skin condition. although i do believe that any changes in this condition can be in part affected by my diet, for the last few years, the main cause of it has not been diet at all. so again, it's hard to compare states of health before and after paleo, since my state of health is moreso determined by other factors.
in the end, im glad ive educated myself more on nutrition and made the switch. if anything, i'm feeling more mentally sound since eating a healthy diet provides peace of mind as well. you could call it a placebo effect, but it works, imo. of course, it's much more than a placebo effect, since it's been proven to have real effects, but my point is that just believing im eating more healthily helps me be more healthy.
On October 12 2012 09:43 AoN.DimSum wrote: try adding bacon to liver and onions. *drools*
I like to add bacon to my bacon. Fried in unsalted butter. It's even better if you cook it real slow, but I have a 3 year old, so I minimize the grease splattering time. Need to get one of those grease covers for a pan.
On October 12 2012 09:43 AoN.DimSum wrote: try adding bacon to liver and onions. *drools*
I like to add bacon to my bacon. Fried in unsalted butter. It's even better if you cook it real slow, but I have a 3 year old, so I minimize the grease splattering time. Need to get one of those grease covers for a pan.
frying it in butter sounds delicious, but i still never do that cuz the pan always fills itself up with the bacon grease. then i make fried rice with the bacon and the grease. throw in some chopped onions (also cooked in the bacon grease), chopped collard greens, mushrooms, and shallots. omfg.
On October 12 2012 09:43 AoN.DimSum wrote: try adding bacon to liver and onions. *drools*
I like to add bacon to my bacon. Fried in unsalted butter. It's even better if you cook it real slow, but I have a 3 year old, so I minimize the grease splattering time. Need to get one of those grease covers for a pan.
frying it in butter sounds delicious, but i still never do that cuz the pan always fills itself up with the bacon grease. then i make fried rice with the bacon and the grease. throw in some chopped onions (also cooked in the bacon grease), chopped collard greens, mushrooms, and shallots. omfg.
On October 12 2012 09:43 AoN.DimSum wrote: try adding bacon to liver and onions. *drools*
I like to add bacon to my bacon. Fried in unsalted butter. It's even better if you cook it real slow, but I have a 3 year old, so I minimize the grease splattering time. Need to get one of those grease covers for a pan.
frying it in butter sounds delicious, but i still never do that cuz the pan always fills itself up with the bacon grease. then i make fried rice with the bacon and the grease. throw in some chopped onions (also cooked in the bacon grease), chopped collard greens, mushrooms, and shallots. omfg.
I'm guessing eshlow's brain, on autopilot at a weird hour, just assumed it was a new "vegan on a mission" suggesting that eating meat is like eating babies.
It HAS been a couple of weeks since we had one, after all. We're kinda due.
When you folks say 'throw some meat and veggies in a pan and cover'--how high a heat setting are you using on your stove (say, on the usual scale of 1-10)?
I think all stoves are different.... when i was at school, we had electric stoves in the dorms and they weren't as hot as the gas stove that i'm using now.
i usually have it on somewhere between 6 and 10 i guess. it's not hot enough that it makes the meat stick to the pan some times, but not toos slow either.
when i make fried rice, i have it at 10 lol. same for if im cooking really thin strips of meat.
eggs are at like 5 or 6.
fish is around 7 i guess.
but again, you just need to cook more because your stove is probably different from mine.
On October 12 2012 09:43 AoN.DimSum wrote: try adding bacon to liver and onions. *drools*
I like to add bacon to my bacon. Fried in unsalted butter. It's even better if you cook it real slow, but I have a 3 year old, so I minimize the grease splattering time. Need to get one of those grease covers for a pan.
frying it in butter sounds delicious, but i still never do that cuz the pan always fills itself up with the bacon grease. then i make fried rice with the bacon and the grease. throw in some chopped onions (also cooked in the bacon grease), chopped collard greens, mushrooms, and shallots. omfg.
On October 12 2012 09:43 AoN.DimSum wrote: try adding bacon to liver and onions. *drools*
I like to add bacon to my bacon. Fried in unsalted butter. It's even better if you cook it real slow, but I have a 3 year old, so I minimize the grease splattering time. Need to get one of those grease covers for a pan.
frying it in butter sounds delicious, but i still never do that cuz the pan always fills itself up with the bacon grease. then i make fried rice with the bacon and the grease. throw in some chopped onions (also cooked in the bacon grease), chopped collard greens, mushrooms, and shallots. omfg.
If you don't edit for a while, it gets locked for editing. One of our local mod types can fix it for you if you threaten to excommunicate them from the cult, at which point they automatically become skinny.
Very interesting article. Didn't have time to read the lot, but I think there's a good point about the iceberg effect of celiac's and associated intolerance disorders. My girlfriend was recently tested for celiac's (biopsy) and came up negative, but I have no doubt in my mind that her health is improved in the 2-3 months since she went gluten free, particularly regarding her ability to gain muscle mass.
I don't subscribe to paleo or gluten free diets currently, as I've never really had any health concerns with my present diet. But I am starting to consider the unknown longitudinal effects of my diet, and I'm going to make an effort to at least phase out wheat products from my diet over the next couple years. It'll make cooking for the gf less of a hassle if nothing else.
It's getting chilly, and I'm going to start adding maple syrup to my morning coffee. I usually like it black, but maple syrup supposedly goes really well.
On October 14 2012 20:23 Cambium wrote: It's getting chilly, and I'm going to start adding maple syrup to my morning coffee. I usually like it black, but maple syrup supposedly goes really well.
Has anyone tried this before?
Yes, it's decent, assuming you're talking about real maple syrup and not some weird maple flavored topping shit like so many people think is syrup.
i stayed on a relatively decent paleo diet (occasional piece of bread every 2 or 3 days, sometimes eat foods cooked with vegetable oil, but overall it's been good) for about a month or so. this morning and afternoon, i ate a total of 2 bagels and 3 slices of wheat bread. had tons of gas during the evening. i wouldn't say i'm surprised after hearing all the talk about grains, but actually experiencing its effects is different. i don't feel bloated or anything, but there definitely is a change when i suddenly eat a whole bunch of wheat products.
on a side note, for dinner i had an avocado, some pine nuts, white rice, chinese veggies with beef, tomatoes stir fried with eggs, and a nice chunk of swordfish pan seared with a bit if butter. AND NO I DIDNT EAT ANY KIDS.
on a side note, is coffee good or bad for you in moderate amounts? how about half & half creamer? like 2 cups or so each day? i usually drink decaf cuz drinking caffeine makes me stay up all night.
edit - wow i meant to say i usually DONT drink decaf
Yummy. Making pork chops, with my homemade rub, a bit of local wildflower honey, baked on a buttered pan with just a sprinkling of cooking sherry on top. Ok, so maybe not perfectly paleo, but damn that's some good pork.
Coffee also has good antioxidants in it. I prefer 2% or whole milk in my coffee. Half and half is insanely popular in New Jersey, but I find it too sweet, even in small amounts. You can lighten your coffee with significantly less half and half, but obviously the higher fat content means you wind up with around the same amount of calories. I've heard that milk can slow/halt the antioxidant absorption, but haven't read anything conclusive.
If you have one nearby, WaWa coffee is off the charts good. Balanced, low acidity, full of flavor, and not too bitter.
Coffee also has good antioxidants in it. I prefer 2% or whole milk in my coffee. Half and half is insanely popular in New Jersey, but I find it too sweet, even in small amounts. You can lighten your coffee with significantly less half and half, but obviously the higher fat content means you wind up with around the same amount of calories. I've heard that milk can slow/halt the antioxidant absorption, but haven't read anything conclusive.
If you have one nearby, WaWa coffee is off the charts good. Balanced, low acidity, full of flavor, and not too bitter.
read somewhere that milk in tea and coffee makes the antioxidants less efficient so it could be true. But if you like milk in your coffee i dont think you should really care
Thanks for the responses. I started drinking coffee because there's a convenient coffee machine where i work, so i figured 'why not use it.' i love half n half (i can drink it from the carton), and is absolutely amazing mixed with strong coffee or very strong black tea. but i can do without (or just occasionally) if it's not great for my health. knowing that coffee has some good health effects is nice. i'll probably stick to 1 or 2 cups a day. i mostly drink water, sometimes tea or juice, all other times.
I generally don't eat much bread or pasta so I haven't really paid attention to this in the past, but yesterday I ate quite a lot of white bread and later got symptoms that would point to celiac disease. I looked some more into this and did the home test but it was negative. I know for a fact that I get gastrointestinal symptoms from pasta, rye bread and white bread so it looks to be gluten related.
I guess I'm wasting everyone's time writing about this here and I should just go to a doctor and I probably will, but any ideas what might be the issue?
I'm thinking,
- Negative result from the test because my body either doesn't produce (IgA deficiency) the antibodies or I haven't eaten enough gluten lately to produce them. (I certainly haven't been 100% gluten free) - Some kind of non-celiac gluten sensitivity/intolerance?
On March 03 2013 11:16 rEiGN~ wrote: I generally don't eat much bread or pasta so I haven't really paid attention to this in the past, but yesterday I ate quite a lot of white bread and later got symptoms that would point to celiac disease. I looked some more into this and did the home test but it was negative. I know for a fact that I get gastrointestinal symptoms from pasta, rye bread and white bread so it looks to be gluten related.
I guess I'm wasting everyone's time writing about this here and I should just go to a doctor and I probably will, but any ideas what might be the issue?
I'm thinking,
- Negative result from the test because my body either doesn't produce (IgA deficiency) the antibodies or I haven't eaten enough gluten lately to produce them. (I certainly haven't been 100% gluten free) - Some kind of non-celiac gluten sensitivity/intolerance?
The simplest thing for you to do is just eliminate gluten for about a week and then eat a bunch of it at once and see what happens. There are many people who test negative for celiac but still have a gluten sensitivity.
I'd say not to worry if you only got "sympthoms" after 1 big pasta meal. If, on the other hand, you experience daily stomach gasses and biweekly or weekly diarrhea, then go to a digestive doctor and get yourself properly diagnosed. Because it might be celiac or something completely unrelated such as irritable bowel syndrome or chron's. And trust me on this, abiding to pure gluten-free diet is a pain in the ass.
On March 14 2013 20:43 rEiGN~ wrote: What's the latest on healthiness of red meat? That and chicken are pretty big part of my diet and I'm a bit concerned.
Preferably grass fed, but it's fine.
Any type of processed carbs is worse than meat (juice, soda, candy, any type of wheat products like pasta, noodles, pastries, bread,etc).
L-carnitine is a naturally occurring amino acid in muscles so it's not like it's unhealthy. Only when it's converted.
This pretty much only serves to further the fact that gut health is still not well understood, but it's very important overall for health.
When you eat crappy food your gut flora will reflect that.
It will be interesting to see studies on the particular flora from the entire diets that the meat eaters had and whether they compared it to subjects who were eating standard american diet vs mediterranean or paleo or whatever. But I think we're still a while away from that.
L-carnitine is a naturally occurring amino acid in muscles so it's not like it's unhealthy. Only when it's converted.
This pretty much only serves to further the fact that gut health is still not well understood, but it's very important overall for health.
When you eat crappy food your gut flora will reflect that.
It will be interesting to see studies on the particular flora from the entire diets that the meat eaters had and whether they compared it to subjects who were eating standard american diet vs mediterranean or paleo or whatever. But I think we're still a while away from that.
"The Nature Medicine paper is of interest, but the main study reported there was in animals, and unlike our study, lacks hard outcomes," said senior investigator Carl J. Lavie, MD, of the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute at the University of Queensland School of Medicine in New Orleans, in a statement.
So guys... red meat = bad... then red meat = good.
I still say stick to non-processed foods and you'll be generally better off. And yes, that includes eating meat.
Just an attempt from the big food companies trying to divert our attention from the real issue - processed carbs. Does it make sense to you that something we've been eating for the last couple of million years suddenly was able to kill you? If that really was the case the human race would've died off a long time ago.
Edit: I agree it's a difference between meat and meat, go with grass fed and locally produced when available.
Just an attempt from the big food companies trying to divert our attention from the real issue - processed carbs. Does it make sense to you that something we've been eating for the last couple of million years suddenly was able to kill you? If that really was the case the human race would've died off a long time ago.
Edit: I agree it's a difference between meat and meat, go with grass fed and locally produced when available.
What we've been eating for millions of years is not an indicator of whether or not it is healthy/promotes longevity. Evolution does not care how long you live, as long as you live long enough to be able to reproduce. You are here because your ancestors managed to get enough calories and nutrients to reproduce, that's all. No one has ever argued that meat is bad if you want to be able to pass on your genes; you can have a crap diet and get to reproductive age easily. The really bad stuff that will kill you always takes a long time to develop. It's bad because it augments your risk of chronic disease and early mortality. This is the case for meat, actually, regardless of its source. Cooking methods have a lot to do with it as well, but on the whole, people who eat more meat will live less long, confounding factors taken into account.
EPT
.
![[image loading]](http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/9000/Beer-Tree-9466.jpg)
. I think eating well means eating a variety of foods and keep it varied within the scope of the whole paleo theory. Some things to take away from the standard modern 'Western' diet is that you have to eat varied to get all the nutritional stuff that you need, which is obviously something that's true; also for paleo.![[image loading]](http://i40.tinypic.com/a26at0.jpg)
