Paleo Restart
Replies
-
BrownTown14 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »
Yeah! And if that caveman was here with us right now, he would also get to enjoy our buffet of diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, autoimmune disease, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease and a host of neurological disease.
that may be the most ridiculous statement I have seen on here in a while.
why is modern mans life span almost three times that of our paleolithic brethren if we are dining from a buffet of diabetes, cancer, etc?????
Because that's not what killed paleolithic man.
Infant mortality, infection, trauma from predators tend to kill you sooner than the above conditions. Especially infant mortality no? Those are what killed paleolithic man. We are kind of protected from those things to a larger degree this day and age.
And the lack of those chronic diseases above isn't limited to the paleolithic era... They were all rare as hens teeth prior to the 1900s. They existed, but were very isolated case reports compared to today.
And the argument that we live longer to get these diseases today does not explain the 40 year olds with heart attacks, autoimmune disease affecting any age, higher incidence of cancer in 30 year olds, diabetes in teenagers (type II, not type I), and obese infants. Not to mention neurodegenerative diseases.
the other thing, is that paleolithic death causes were nice and quick. The other causes, aside from that monster heart attack, all take their sweet time.
from what I understand about the paleo diet, it isn't about preventing death, but more about preventing suffering.
Now, you could make an argument that life without deep and delicious cakes or McDonald's or whatever is also suffering. That would be a valid point. But you turn back the clock even no more than a hundred years, and those modern foods didn't exist. And many people seemed to be quite happy despite those things not being in their lives.
So people in the Paleolithic era were disease free, really?
Please provide back up for your claim that diseases were rare before the 1900's. Perhaps, people believed they were rare because they could not diagnose them as accurately...
So all people dying post paleolithic are suffering, really?
you really just need to stop with the ridiculousness....
0 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »BrownTown14 wrote: »I don't think that the poster was saying that there isn't a variety in hunter gatherer diets. But the commonality between them all (despite widely varying foods and macro ratios) is whole single ingredient real food.
That's not actually what defines the paleo diet. The whole foods thing is also of course true for the wide variety of traditional (not paleo) diets that existed post agriculture (as well as how many non paleo people choose to eat for the most part). Remember it's the staples that came about post-agriculture that paleo is saying are the problem: grains, legumes, and dairy. That's why it claims to be "paleo" and NOT pre industrial.
Also, I have no idea what you mean by "single ingredient," but paleo doesn't require people to eat based on single ingredients (luckily, or it would be much more unpleasant and restrictive than it is--as it is I think it can be a quite pleasant way of eating, depending on your preferences).
I myself am not arguing for the actual paleo diet, just that the premises are certainly better than the SAD.
Eh, I'm not going to defend the SAD, at least as I assume you are using it and as it typically gets used. (When I was growing up the standard American diet was meat, potatoes or some other starch, and veggies--that's how we ate, and I don't think that's worse than paleo. Indeed, it's quite similar to how I ate when doing paleo, as well as now.)
But the discussion here is about paleo's particular health claims, specifically that grains, legumes, and dairy make a diet less healthy than one without them.With respect to legumes, dairy (esp full fat dairy from grass fed animals) and grains.....
Thoughts actually vary on this. The poster (not OP) was referring to primal, which is more permissive in this regard. However, omission of these foods is most relevant from an autoimmune standpoint.
Actually, the paleo "autoimmune protocol" is much MORE restrictive, and not the only basis for claiming that grains, beans, and dairy should be excluded. It also excludes a bunch of other stuff like eggs, nuts, seeds, and nightshades.
The paleo claims are NOT limited to people who are celiac, lactose intolerant, or have issues with legumes in some way nor people who have autoimmune issues--that's my objection to the claims. The assertion is that a pre-agricultural diet (which is impossible in reality and wouldn't have been grain or legume free anyway) is somehow preferable to contemporary humans than one including those foods plus dairy. This is not the limited attack on the SAD (which is certainly open to attack, we agree) that you are portraying.
I might address the argument on grains later. I just want to make sure that the specifics of the discussion are clear, first: your position is that a diet without grains, legumes, and dairy is necessarily healthier than one that includes those foods.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »The nutritional properties of grains are far exceeded by veggies/fruits - so why bother. Not only that, I love the taste of veggies and fruit - so I would rather eat them over a grain - and it's helluva a lot easier - since I don't have to bake my own bread to do so (as an example). It's easy cheesy to eat fruits/veggies with a Vitamix (as another example).
We have some differences here: I don't think there's "risk" with whole grains or that you have to bake your own bread to eat them (you yourself eat grains as you mentioned--rice--and the main source of grain in my diet probably is oats (although it varies). I am also always meaning to eat more grains such as barley and buckwheat, etc. Also, there are good sources of whole grain bread and other products, including pasta, depending on what your concern is. That said, I kind of like baking bread and wanting to get back to it some day is one reason I could never really be paleo. Well, and I enjoy making pie too.
Also, frankly, I don't enjoy eating fruits and veggies in smoothie form nearly as much as I enjoy them--especially greens--in a more whole form, not all blended up. I don't think there's anything wrong with blending them up, but it makes them less satisfying to me and dilutes their flavors.
That said, I actually do agree that grains are likely somewhat overrated as to their likely nutritional benefits (but there is a correlation so I think it's foolish to assume we know everything possible) and that for the most part veggies and (maybe) fruits are better IF you had to choose between them, but of course you don't. More significantly, I too like veggies and fruits better--to me a meal isn't a meal without veggies, but you don't need a starchy carb, although it can be nice to have one. That's one reason why I was attracted to paleo. But upon doing it for a bit and further reflection I realized that if I was happy cutting these foods because I wasn't that into them (but for certain exceptions that I eat in moderation) it seemed silly to inconvenience myself by avoiding them. If a convenient lunch place by my office makes delicious and healthy sandwiches on whole grain bread, why exclude it as an option? Similarly, why not be able to have lentil stew or the like?Beyond that - eating a whole foods, nutrient-dense source of is the wisest decision anyone can make.
I happen to agree with you on this. I don't think it's actually the debate when we are discussing the benefits of paleo. Many whole-foods-based, nutrient-dense diets will include grains, legumes, and dairy. Also, to bring in a separate discussion, one can certainly eat such a diet and have other foods included from time to time.I think the fair question to ask is whether CICO should also apply a principle of good nutrition (calories-in part).
CICO is just a statement of fact, not a diet.
If you are asking whether we think a good diet should be based on good nutrition, of course. At least, speaking for myself.Not all foods provide it. Some are more nutrient-dense than others.
Yes, of course. I don't think anyone argues with this.I believe Paleo, if done properly, is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
If you define something being done properly as considering principles of good nutrition (as I assume you do, and so do I), this is a truism. Any diet "done properly" would then be a healthy way to eat.
The question is whether all else equal cutting out grains, legumes, and dairy makes a diet MORE healthy. I don't believe it does.
0 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »
Yeah! And if that caveman was here with us right now, he would also get to enjoy our buffet of diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, autoimmune disease, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease and a host of neurological disease.
that may be the most ridiculous statement I have seen on here in a while.
why is modern mans life span almost three times that of our paleolithic brethren if we are dining from a buffet of diabetes, cancer, etc?????
Because that's not what killed paleolithic man.
Infant mortality, infection, trauma from predators tend to kill you sooner than the above conditions. Especially infant mortality no? Those are what killed paleolithic man. We are kind of protected from those things to a larger degree this day and age.
And the lack of those chronic diseases above isn't limited to the paleolithic era... They were all rare as hens teeth prior to the 1900s. They existed, but were very isolated case reports compared to today.
And the argument that we live longer to get these diseases today does not explain the 40 year olds with heart attacks, autoimmune disease affecting any age, higher incidence of cancer in 30 year olds, diabetes in teenagers (type II, not type I), and obese infants. Not to mention neurodegenerative diseases.
the other thing, is that paleolithic death causes were nice and quick. The other causes, aside from that monster heart attack, all take their sweet time.
from what I understand about the paleo diet, it isn't about preventing death, but more about preventing suffering.
Now, you could make an argument that life without deep and delicious cakes or McDonald's or whatever is also suffering. That would be a valid point. But you turn back the clock even no more than a hundred years, and those modern foods didn't exist. And many people seemed to be quite happy despite those things not being in their lives.
So people in the Paleolithic era were disease free, really?
Please provide back up for your claim that diseases were rare before the 1900's. Perhaps, people believed they were rare because they could not diagnose them as accurately...
So all people dying post paleolithic are suffering, really?
you really just need to stop with the ridiculousness....
Hey man, no need to get angry, I wasn't looking for a fight, just stating a viewpoint.
Paleolithic people were not disease free. I didn't say that. They just didn't have the same diseases. The chronic diseases in question were not even close to the main causes of death before 1900. Or even 1950.
Yes, we can diagnose them more accurately now pre-death. But autopsies have been around for quite a while, it was the main method of learning for doctors for thousands of years. And the clinical manifestations of these chronic diseases are dead easy to diagnose in their advanced stages, lending themselves quite easily to description. Pens (quills) and paper have been around for a while.
Of course, there were single cases here and there of diabetes (can be easily diagnosed back in the day as Dr.s tasted the urine for sweetness, gangrene of the limbs would have been seen, along with DKA and the smell of ketones on the breath, and kidney atrophy would have been seen at autopsy), autoimmune disease (the subluxations deformities and nodules of RA can be diagnosed by a blind man, discoid lupus is dead easy to spot, along with a malar rash, scleroderma, ankylosing spondylitis you can see from a mile away in its advanced stages, same with psoriasis), coronary artery disease (a 5 year old can spot this on autopsy), and cancers (in their advances stages would hit the autopsy guy in the face - they would actually have a hard time separating normal anatomy from tumor because the metastasis is often so widespread at the end). Alzheimer's would have been a bit tougher to diagnose back in the day because there were many reasons people would not be "all there", but again, in its advanced stages, distinct preferential parietal and temporal lobe atrophy is often seen at autopsy that would stick out to anyone.
So why were these not described with hourly frequency back in the 1900s??? There was no treatment for any of these things, so the florid advanced stages of the diseases should have been readily apparent, instead of the more subtle early partially treated findings we see today.
The stats of today are that these will affect virtually everyone. That's a far cry from the scant case reports prior to 1900. There should be millions of case reports of these diseases if today's statistics apply to the past.
And all that isn't doesn't even include obesity itself, which school children diagnose on the playground every day in the form of bullying, so I'm sure doctors wouldn't have had a problem. Sure, you could say that food is more abundant now, but then, wouldn't all the rich people in history have been fat??? A few were, but not even close to all the people who were rich throughout history (who had more access to food than you or I).0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Those blue zone folks sure eat healthfully!FunkyTobias wrote: »If grains, legumes, dairy, etc. are so bad, please explain why the healthiest populations in the world regularly consume them.
Dietary Habits of the World’s Healthiest Populations
The Blue Zones are populations with the longest life expectancies,
highest centenarian rates, and lowest rates of chronic & degenerative
disease [51]. Five “longevity hot spots” have been identified and
studied by research teams led by explorer Dan Buettner.
The Blue Zones
• Ikaria, Greece: A variation of the Mediterranean diet, rich in
olive oil, fruits, vegetables (wild greens), whole grains, fruit and
a little fish. Goat milk and wine (about 2 glasses per day) are also
traditional. Coffee and tea are consumed regularly.
• Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda, California: Vegetarian diet
rich in beans & nuts, low EPA/DHA intake, high intake of the
plant-derived omega-6 fatty acid, no alcoholic beverage
consumption.
• Nicoya, Costa Rica: Black beans, white rice, corn tortillas, squash, eggs
(mostly fried), and fruit are staples. More meat (mainly chicken & pork)
and fruit is consumed compared to other blue zones. The water is very
high in minerals, especially calcium due to the regions limestone
bedrock. Coffee is drank daily, sweetened with raw sugar cane.
• Sardinia, Italy: Plant-dominant diet, large quantities of dark red wine,
fava beans, and barley are consumed. Goat milk & goat cheese are
staples. Meat intake (lamb, lean pork, oily fish, and shellfish) is modest
& infrequent. Coffee is drank daily.
• Okinawa, Japan: Plant-dominant diet, large amounts of various types
of seaweed are consumed. Staples include sweet potatoes, soy beans
& soy products such as tofu & miso, white rice, and tea. Raw sugar is
eaten with snacks. Minor consumption of fish & pork. The diet is very
high-carb, very low-fat. Virtually no eggs or dairy.
Dietary Commonalities Among the Blue Zones
• Largely plant-based.
• No over-eating.
• Foods are locally or home-grown & home-prepared.
• Carbohydrate (largely from starch) is the predominant
macronutrient.
• Beans, including fava, black, soy and lentils, are the
cornerstone of most centenarian diets.
• 3 of the 5 zones are regular coffee consumers.
• 4 of the 5 zones are regular alcohol consumers.
• All 5 zones are regular consumers of grains & legumes.
• None of the zones follow a Paleo-type diet.
http://www.nsca.com/uploadedfiles/nsca/inactive_content/program_books/ptc_2013_program_book/aragon.pdf
Yes, they do. I think considering those diets is a sensible thing to do, and it's both something I take into account in thinking about my own diet and part of why the paleo claims aren't convincing to me.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate
As a primal diet/exercise guy, I actually agree with your statement. Things like grass-fed grass-finished lamb, grass-fed grass-finished beef, and the modern organic versions of fruits and vegetables are probably not what real paleolithic people ate.
But I am very very very certain that the those foods are much closer to what paleolithic people ate in comparison to pop tarts, donuts, pizza, candy bars, frozen dinners, McDonalds, twinkies, cupcakes, bread, mystery meat, glow in the dark crackers, coca cola, lucky charms, count chocula, muffins, croissants, and french fries that will stay mould free until the year 2089.
And? Closer doesn't equal the same. Those things in your first paragraph are also closer to what pre-Industrial Revolution people ate. Why aren't we calling it the pre-industrial diet?
Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those things in your second paragraph within the context of a well-balanced diet.
On the other hand...what difference does it make what someone else calls their diet?
I am far from any definition that someone might apply with the term Paleo. I try to eat a Balanced Diet. I realize however...my definition of a Balanced Diet might be different from someone elses.
I don't understand why people get so upset about what other people refer to as their way of eating.
Honestly...is the term Paleo any more reasonable that saying that you eat IIFYM. I think that IIFYM is a rather broad definition in itself. Just as the label Balanced Diet is. Some people might call a balanced diet...MyPlate Diet or the Dash Diet.
Sometimes I call my diet the...Whatever I Have In the Refrigerator Diet!
1 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate
As a primal diet/exercise guy, I actually agree with your statement. Things like grass-fed grass-finished lamb, grass-fed grass-finished beef, and the modern organic versions of fruits and vegetables are probably not what real paleolithic people ate.
But I am very very very certain that the those foods are much closer to what paleolithic people ate in comparison to pop tarts, donuts, pizza, candy bars, frozen dinners, McDonalds, twinkies, cupcakes, bread, mystery meat, glow in the dark crackers, coca cola, lucky charms, count chocula, muffins, croissants, and french fries that will stay mould free until the year 2089.
And? Closer doesn't equal the same. Those things in your first paragraph are also closer to what pre-Industrial Revolution people ate. Why aren't we calling it the pre-industrial diet?
Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those things in your second paragraph within the context of a well-balanced diet.
On the other hand...what difference does it make what someone else calls their diet?
I can see why someone invested in studying the paleo era or the like would be bothered by the misappropriation of the term.
Personally, I don't mind the name at all (beats "caveman diet"!). I'm interested in the claims, which ARE generally that the specific changes since paleo times--namely, agriculture and the use of animals for milk, not industrial agriculture which happened much later--were bad for human health and thus we should try to eat as if these things had not happened, as much as possible.
If those claims are made, one issue to research is whether they are even accurate as to how paleo people ate and how the recommended diet actually lines up, since the underlying idea is that one would be healthier eating like people did back then.
Anyway, as I've said before, I think paleo is a perfectly good choice for an individual and represents a possible healthful way of eating. I only argue when people start claiming it's inherently healthier than non-paleo ways of eating, since I think the evidence is to the contrary.1 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »Yes, hunter gatherers have other problems, but not diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, autoimmune disease etc as described above.
Half of them are dead by age 15.
I'll take late-life alzheimers over that, 10 times out of 10.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate
As a primal diet/exercise guy, I actually agree with your statement. Things like grass-fed grass-finished lamb, grass-fed grass-finished beef, and the modern organic versions of fruits and vegetables are probably not what real paleolithic people ate.
But I am very very very certain that the those foods are much closer to what paleolithic people ate in comparison to pop tarts, donuts, pizza, candy bars, frozen dinners, McDonalds, twinkies, cupcakes, bread, mystery meat, glow in the dark crackers, coca cola, lucky charms, count chocula, muffins, croissants, and french fries that will stay mould free until the year 2089.
And? Closer doesn't equal the same. Those things in your first paragraph are also closer to what pre-Industrial Revolution people ate. Why aren't we calling it the pre-industrial diet?
Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those things in your second paragraph within the context of a well-balanced diet.
On the other hand...what difference does it make what someone else calls their diet?
I can see why someone invested in studying the paleo era or the like would be bothered by the misappropriation of the term.
Personally, I don't mind the name at all (beats "caveman diet"!). I'm interested in the claims, which ARE generally that the specific changes since paleo times--namely, agriculture and the use of animals for milk, not industrial agriculture which happened much later--were bad for human health and thus we should try to eat as if these things had not happened, as much as possible.
If those claims are made, one issue to research is whether they are even accurate as to how paleo people ate and how the recommended diet actually lines up, since the underlying idea is that one would be healthier eating like people did back then.
Anyway, as I've said before, I think paleo is a perfectly good choice for an individual and represents a possible healthful way of eating. I only argue when people start claiming it's inherently healthier than non-paleo ways of eating, since I think the evidence is to the contrary.
People (at least in the US) constantly misapply words. They are misapplied so often that soon they take on a new meaning.
I agree with the "my diet is healthier than your diet" argument gets old and is for the most part in accurate. If we look at Paleo, Vegetarian, Vegan, "Clean", Whole Foods and the hundreds of other so called diets...they all have their strong/weak points. There are those extremists in all of those different groups. I believe however that the IIFYM group has their extremists also. I say that while my own preference to eating closely follows that path.
The problem in my mind is not the "Paleo" eaters...but people in general needing to find themselves "better" than others...the "I am right and you are wrong" crowd. That sadly applies to any type of food eating group.
For myself...I have had to admit...there are some types of carbs that seem to trigger any binge eating that I might do. I know that to keep my eating under control I will have to limit those types of foods. I just can't seem to moderate them on a regular basis.
0 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »Yes, hunter gatherers have other problems, but not diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, autoimmune disease etc as described above.
Half of them are dead by age 15.
I'll take late-life alzheimers over that, 10 times out of 10.
I think it was a case of they got eaten by their own food source. It was a first come first serve type of life style.
0 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »Yes, hunter gatherers have other problems, but not diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, autoimmune disease etc as described above.
Half of them are dead by age 15.
I'll take late-life alzheimers over that, 10 times out of 10.
I think it was a case of they got eaten by their own food source. It was a first come first serve type of life style.
Nicely put!
0 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »If grains, legumes, dairy, etc. are so bad, please explain why the healthiest populations in the world regularly consume them.
Dietary Habits of the World’s Healthiest Populations
The Blue Zones are populations with the longest life expectancies,
highest centenarian rates, and lowest rates of chronic & degenerative
disease [51]. Five “longevity hot spots” have been identified and
studied by research teams led by explorer Dan Buettner.
The Blue Zones
• Ikaria, Greece: A variation of the Mediterranean diet, rich in
olive oil, fruits, vegetables (wild greens), whole grains, fruit and
a little fish. Goat milk and wine (about 2 glasses per day) are also
traditional. Coffee and tea are consumed regularly.
• Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda, California: Vegetarian diet
rich in beans & nuts, low EPA/DHA intake, high intake of the
plant-derived omega-6 fatty acid, no alcoholic beverage
consumption.
• Nicoya, Costa Rica: Black beans, white rice, corn tortillas, squash, eggs
(mostly fried), and fruit are staples. More meat (mainly chicken & pork)
and fruit is consumed compared to other blue zones. The water is very
high in minerals, especially calcium due to the regions limestone
bedrock. Coffee is drank daily, sweetened with raw sugar cane.
• Sardinia, Italy: Plant-dominant diet, large quantities of dark red wine,
fava beans, and barley are consumed. Goat milk & goat cheese are
staples. Meat intake (lamb, lean pork, oily fish, and shellfish) is modest
& infrequent. Coffee is drank daily.
• Okinawa, Japan: Plant-dominant diet, large amounts of various types
of seaweed are consumed. Staples include sweet potatoes, soy beans
& soy products such as tofu & miso, white rice, and tea. Raw sugar is
eaten with snacks. Minor consumption of fish & pork. The diet is very
high-carb, very low-fat. Virtually no eggs or dairy.
Dietary Commonalities Among the Blue Zones
• Largely plant-based.
• No over-eating.
• Foods are locally or home-grown & home-prepared.
• Carbohydrate (largely from starch) is the predominant
macronutrient.
• Beans, including fava, black, soy and lentils, are the
cornerstone of most centenarian diets.
• 3 of the 5 zones are regular coffee consumers.
• 4 of the 5 zones are regular alcohol consumers.
• All 5 zones are regular consumers of grains & legumes.
• None of the zones follow a Paleo-type diet.
http://www.nsca.com/uploadedfiles/nsca/inactive_content/program_books/ptc_2013_program_book/aragon.pdf
Agreed with your post. No qualms with it.
But again, I don't think anybody was saying the rules of the Paleo diet are the ones to live by. Not all grains are the same, no doubt. Legumes affect different people differently. Same with dairy, and dairy varies widely on quality and source. So it's hard to be too dogmatic about those. I agree.
What a few of us ARE saying is that those Blue Zones sure don't look like a SAD with moderation.
And just throwing this out there, if more and more of the world is adopting the SAD (which they are), it's kind of easy to be healthy by comparison. It's getting easier to be a Blue Zone. Just don't do what North America is doing.
You're arguing, though, with people who aren't necessarily following SAD and presuming they are. Why do that?
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate
As a primal diet/exercise guy, I actually agree with your statement. Things like grass-fed grass-finished lamb, grass-fed grass-finished beef, and the modern organic versions of fruits and vegetables are probably not what real paleolithic people ate.
But I am very very very certain that the those foods are much closer to what paleolithic people ate in comparison to pop tarts, donuts, pizza, candy bars, frozen dinners, McDonalds, twinkies, cupcakes, bread, mystery meat, glow in the dark crackers, coca cola, lucky charms, count chocula, muffins, croissants, and french fries that will stay mould free until the year 2089.
And? Closer doesn't equal the same. Those things in your first paragraph are also closer to what pre-Industrial Revolution people ate. Why aren't we calling it the pre-industrial diet?
Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those things in your second paragraph within the context of a well-balanced diet.
On the other hand...what difference does it make what someone else calls their diet?
I am far from any definition that someone might apply with the term Paleo. I try to eat a Balanced Diet. I realize however...my definition of a Balanced Diet might be different from someone elses.
I don't understand why people get so upset about what other people refer to as their way of eating.
Honestly...is the term Paleo any more reasonable that saying that you eat IIFYM. I think that IIFYM is a rather broad definition in itself. Just as the label Balanced Diet is. Some people might call a balanced diet...MyPlate Diet or the Dash Diet.
Sometimes I call my diet the...Whatever I Have In the Refrigerator Diet!
Here is the difference in your two examples:
IIFYM = If it fits your macros, which is really what people are doing
Paleo Diet = Has nothing to do with a Paleolithic Diet, and the claims that the diet makes about foods from 10,000 years ago being better for overall health are ridiculous.
so lets recap ...IIFYM means exactly what the name implies; Paleo is dependent on which version you are following and has nothing to do with the term Paleolithic.
that is the difference.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Those blue zone folks sure eat healthfully!FunkyTobias wrote: »If grains, legumes, dairy, etc. are so bad, please explain why the healthiest populations in the world regularly consume them.
Dietary Habits of the World’s Healthiest Populations
The Blue Zones are populations with the longest life expectancies,
highest centenarian rates, and lowest rates of chronic & degenerative
disease [51]. Five “longevity hot spots” have been identified and
studied by research teams led by explorer Dan Buettner.
The Blue Zones
• Ikaria, Greece: A variation of the Mediterranean diet, rich in
olive oil, fruits, vegetables (wild greens), whole grains, fruit and
a little fish. Goat milk and wine (about 2 glasses per day) are also
traditional. Coffee and tea are consumed regularly.
• Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda, California: Vegetarian diet
rich in beans & nuts, low EPA/DHA intake, high intake of the
plant-derived omega-6 fatty acid, no alcoholic beverage
consumption.
• Nicoya, Costa Rica: Black beans, white rice, corn tortillas, squash, eggs
(mostly fried), and fruit are staples. More meat (mainly chicken & pork)
and fruit is consumed compared to other blue zones. The water is very
high in minerals, especially calcium due to the regions limestone
bedrock. Coffee is drank daily, sweetened with raw sugar cane.
• Sardinia, Italy: Plant-dominant diet, large quantities of dark red wine,
fava beans, and barley are consumed. Goat milk & goat cheese are
staples. Meat intake (lamb, lean pork, oily fish, and shellfish) is modest
& infrequent. Coffee is drank daily.
• Okinawa, Japan: Plant-dominant diet, large amounts of various types
of seaweed are consumed. Staples include sweet potatoes, soy beans
& soy products such as tofu & miso, white rice, and tea. Raw sugar is
eaten with snacks. Minor consumption of fish & pork. The diet is very
high-carb, very low-fat. Virtually no eggs or dairy.
Dietary Commonalities Among the Blue Zones
• Largely plant-based.
• No over-eating.
• Foods are locally or home-grown & home-prepared.
• Carbohydrate (largely from starch) is the predominant
macronutrient.
• Beans, including fava, black, soy and lentils, are the
cornerstone of most centenarian diets.
• 3 of the 5 zones are regular coffee consumers.
• 4 of the 5 zones are regular alcohol consumers.
• All 5 zones are regular consumers of grains & legumes.
• None of the zones follow a Paleo-type diet.
http://www.nsca.com/uploadedfiles/nsca/inactive_content/program_books/ptc_2013_program_book/aragon.pdf
Yes, they do. I think considering those diets is a sensible thing to do, and it's both something I take into account in thinking about my own diet and part of why the paleo claims aren't convincing to me.
The particular claims in this thread leaning towards disease prevention are quite disturbing and woo-like, if you ask me.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »The nutritional properties of grains are far exceeded by veggies/fruits - so why bother. Not only that, I love the taste of veggies and fruit - so I would rather eat them over a grain - and it's helluva a lot easier - since I don't have to bake my own bread to do so (as an example). It's easy cheesy to eat fruits/veggies with a Vitamix (as another example).
We have some differences here: I don't think there's "risk" with whole grains or that you have to bake your own bread to eat them (you yourself eat grains as you mentioned--rice--and the main source of grain in my diet probably is oats (although it varies). I am also always meaning to eat more grains such as barley and buckwheat, etc. Also, there are good sources of whole grain bread and other products, including pasta, depending on what your concern is. That said, I kind of like baking bread and wanting to get back to it some day is one reason I could never really be paleo. Well, and I enjoy making pie too.
Also, frankly, I don't enjoy eating fruits and veggies in smoothie form nearly as much as I enjoy them--especially greens--in a more whole form, not all blended up. I don't think there's anything wrong with blending them up, but it makes them less satisfying to me and dilutes their flavors.
That said, I actually do agree that grains are likely somewhat overrated as to their likely nutritional benefits (but there is a correlation so I think it's foolish to assume we know everything possible) and that for the most part veggies and (maybe) fruits are better IF you had to choose between them, but of course you don't. More significantly, I too like veggies and fruits better--to me a meal isn't a meal without veggies, but you don't need a starchy carb, although it can be nice to have one. That's one reason why I was attracted to paleo. But upon doing it for a bit and further reflection I realized that if I was happy cutting these foods because I wasn't that into them (but for certain exceptions that I eat in moderation) it seemed silly to inconvenience myself by avoiding them. If a convenient lunch place by my office makes delicious and healthy sandwiches on whole grain bread, why exclude it as an option? Similarly, why not be able to have lentil stew or the like?Beyond that - eating a whole foods, nutrient-dense source of is the wisest decision anyone can make.
I happen to agree with you on this. I don't think it's actually the debate when we are discussing the benefits of paleo. Many whole-foods-based, nutrient-dense diets will include grains, legumes, and dairy. Also, to bring in a separate discussion, one can certainly eat such a diet and have other foods included from time to time.I think the fair question to ask is whether CICO should also apply a principle of good nutrition (calories-in part).
CICO is just a statement of fact, not a diet.
If you are asking whether we think a good diet should be based on good nutrition, of course. At least, speaking for myself.Not all foods provide it. Some are more nutrient-dense than others.
Yes, of course. I don't think anyone argues with this.I believe Paleo, if done properly, is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
If you define something being done properly as considering principles of good nutrition (as I assume you do, and so do I), this is a truism. Any diet "done properly" would then be a healthy way to eat.
The question is whether all else equal cutting out grains, legumes, and dairy makes a diet MORE healthy. I don't believe it does.
CICO encompasses having a diet. You can't take Calories-In without having a diet (food). That requires a nutritional profile of the foods you are eating. You can't escape it.0 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »BrownTown14 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »
Yeah! And if that caveman was here with us right now, he would also get to enjoy our buffet of diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, autoimmune disease, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease and a host of neurological disease.
that may be the most ridiculous statement I have seen on here in a while.
why is modern mans life span almost three times that of our paleolithic brethren if we are dining from a buffet of diabetes, cancer, etc?????
Because that's not what killed paleolithic man.
Infant mortality, infection, trauma from predators tend to kill you sooner than the above conditions. Especially infant mortality no? Those are what killed paleolithic man. We are kind of protected from those things to a larger degree this day and age.
And the lack of those chronic diseases above isn't limited to the paleolithic era... They were all rare as hens teeth prior to the 1900s. They existed, but were very isolated case reports compared to today.
And the argument that we live longer to get these diseases today does not explain the 40 year olds with heart attacks, autoimmune disease affecting any age, higher incidence of cancer in 30 year olds, diabetes in teenagers (type II, not type I), and obese infants. Not to mention neurodegenerative diseases.
the other thing, is that paleolithic death causes were nice and quick. The other causes, aside from that monster heart attack, all take their sweet time.
from what I understand about the paleo diet, it isn't about preventing death, but more about preventing suffering.
Now, you could make an argument that life without deep and delicious cakes or McDonald's or whatever is also suffering. That would be a valid point. But you turn back the clock even no more than a hundred years, and those modern foods didn't exist. And many people seemed to be quite happy despite those things not being in their lives.
So people in the Paleolithic era were disease free, really?
Please provide back up for your claim that diseases were rare before the 1900's. Perhaps, people believed they were rare because they could not diagnose them as accurately...
So all people dying post paleolithic are suffering, really?
you really just need to stop with the ridiculousness....
Hey man, no need to get angry, I wasn't looking for a fight, just stating a viewpoint.
Paleolithic people were not disease free. I didn't say that. They just didn't have the same diseases. The chronic diseases in question were not even close to the main causes of death before 1900. Or even 1950.
Yes, we can diagnose them more accurately now pre-death. But autopsies have been around for quite a while, it was the main method of learning for doctors for thousands of years. And the clinical manifestations of these chronic diseases are dead easy to diagnose in their advanced stages, lending themselves quite easily to description. Pens (quills) and paper have been around for a while.
Of course, there were single cases here and there of diabetes (can be easily diagnosed back in the day as Dr.s tasted the urine for sweetness, gangrene of the limbs would have been seen, along with DKA and the smell of ketones on the breath, and kidney atrophy would have been seen at autopsy), autoimmune disease (the subluxations deformities and nodules of RA can be diagnosed by a blind man, discoid lupus is dead easy to spot, along with a malar rash, scleroderma, ankylosing spondylitis you can see from a mile away in its advanced stages, same with psoriasis), coronary artery disease (a 5 year old can spot this on autopsy), and cancers (in their advances stages would hit the autopsy guy in the face - they would actually have a hard time separating normal anatomy from tumor because the metastasis is often so widespread at the end). Alzheimer's would have been a bit tougher to diagnose back in the day because there were many reasons people would not be "all there", but again, in its advanced stages, distinct preferential parietal and temporal lobe atrophy is often seen at autopsy that would stick out to anyone.
So why were these not described with hourly frequency back in the 1900s??? There was no treatment for any of these things, so the florid advanced stages of the diseases should have been readily apparent, instead of the more subtle early partially treated findings we see today.
The stats of today are that these will affect virtually everyone. That's a far cry from the scant case reports prior to 1900. There should be millions of case reports of these diseases if today's statistics apply to the past.
And all that isn't doesn't even include obesity itself, which school children diagnose on the playground every day in the form of bullying, so I'm sure doctors wouldn't have had a problem. Sure, you could say that food is more abundant now, but then, wouldn't all the rich people in history have been fat??? A few were, but not even close to all the people who were rich throughout history (who had more access to food than you or I).
You make it sound like everyone was getting autopsied as a matter of course to determine cause of death. I don't think that's how things worked.
0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate
As a primal diet/exercise guy, I actually agree with your statement. Things like grass-fed grass-finished lamb, grass-fed grass-finished beef, and the modern organic versions of fruits and vegetables are probably not what real paleolithic people ate.
But I am very very very certain that the those foods are much closer to what paleolithic people ate in comparison to pop tarts, donuts, pizza, candy bars, frozen dinners, McDonalds, twinkies, cupcakes, bread, mystery meat, glow in the dark crackers, coca cola, lucky charms, count chocula, muffins, croissants, and french fries that will stay mould free until the year 2089.
And? Closer doesn't equal the same. Those things in your first paragraph are also closer to what pre-Industrial Revolution people ate. Why aren't we calling it the pre-industrial diet?
Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those things in your second paragraph within the context of a well-balanced diet.
Those foods in the second paragraph were never on the list of a balanced diet in the pre-industrial revolution, ghengis khan's empire, middle ages, roman empire, greek empire, ancient egypt, neolithic revolution, and the revolution of 5 guys named grok, smok, bok, lok, and oshbegok against 5 other guys with the same name around some bonfire 20,000 years ago.
Untrue. You listed bread. Bread is one of the oldest foods out there, along with cheese. It has been made pretty much as long as there have been civilizations - so yes, people ate grains and dairy in the pre-industrial era, in Ghengis Khan's empire, in the middle ages, in the Roman Empire, in the Greek Empire, in Ancient Egypt etc.
Humans have also always suffered from cancer. Some of the ancient skeletons we have found have been riddled with cancer. Even recently an Egyptian mummy was examined and she was found to have had breast cancer.
It is thought that several millions of years ago, a gene entered our evolutionary line that allowed us to communicate and talk in the complicated way that we do, that no other animal can do. This gene is thought to have also brought us cancer. Animals also get cancer, and many of them also get the other diseases that have been mentioned. Most of them are not about diet, they are about genes - only type 2 diabetes, out of those listed, is diet related. Type 1 is not.
I don't have an opinion on the Paleo diet/'pre industrial diet' either way, I'm just a historian who wasn't happy with the misinformation here.1 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »The nutritional properties of grains are far exceeded by veggies/fruits - so why bother. Not only that, I love the taste of veggies and fruit - so I would rather eat them over a grain - and it's helluva a lot easier - since I don't have to bake my own bread to do so (as an example). It's easy cheesy to eat fruits/veggies with a Vitamix (as another example).
We have some differences here: I don't think there's "risk" with whole grains or that you have to bake your own bread to eat them (you yourself eat grains as you mentioned--rice--and the main source of grain in my diet probably is oats (although it varies). I am also always meaning to eat more grains such as barley and buckwheat, etc. Also, there are good sources of whole grain bread and other products, including pasta, depending on what your concern is. That said, I kind of like baking bread and wanting to get back to it some day is one reason I could never really be paleo. Well, and I enjoy making pie too.
Also, frankly, I don't enjoy eating fruits and veggies in smoothie form nearly as much as I enjoy them--especially greens--in a more whole form, not all blended up. I don't think there's anything wrong with blending them up, but it makes them less satisfying to me and dilutes their flavors.
That said, I actually do agree that grains are likely somewhat overrated as to their likely nutritional benefits (but there is a correlation so I think it's foolish to assume we know everything possible) and that for the most part veggies and (maybe) fruits are better IF you had to choose between them, but of course you don't. More significantly, I too like veggies and fruits better--to me a meal isn't a meal without veggies, but you don't need a starchy carb, although it can be nice to have one. That's one reason why I was attracted to paleo. But upon doing it for a bit and further reflection I realized that if I was happy cutting these foods because I wasn't that into them (but for certain exceptions that I eat in moderation) it seemed silly to inconvenience myself by avoiding them. If a convenient lunch place by my office makes delicious and healthy sandwiches on whole grain bread, why exclude it as an option? Similarly, why not be able to have lentil stew or the like?Beyond that - eating a whole foods, nutrient-dense source of is the wisest decision anyone can make.
I happen to agree with you on this. I don't think it's actually the debate when we are discussing the benefits of paleo. Many whole-foods-based, nutrient-dense diets will include grains, legumes, and dairy. Also, to bring in a separate discussion, one can certainly eat such a diet and have other foods included from time to time.I think the fair question to ask is whether CICO should also apply a principle of good nutrition (calories-in part).
CICO is just a statement of fact, not a diet.
If you are asking whether we think a good diet should be based on good nutrition, of course. At least, speaking for myself.Not all foods provide it. Some are more nutrient-dense than others.
Yes, of course. I don't think anyone argues with this.I believe Paleo, if done properly, is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
If you define something being done properly as considering principles of good nutrition (as I assume you do, and so do I), this is a truism. Any diet "done properly" would then be a healthy way to eat.
The question is whether all else equal cutting out grains, legumes, and dairy makes a diet MORE healthy. I don't believe it does.
CICO encompasses having a diet. You can't take Calories-In without having a diet (food). That requires a nutritional profile of the foods you are eating. You can't escape it.
LOLWUT?
CICO refers simply to energy balance, period.
CI>CO => Gain weight.
CI=CO => Maintain.
CI<CO => Lose weight.
Nutritional profile is a completely separate issue.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »BrownTown14 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »If grains, legumes, dairy, etc. are so bad, please explain why the healthiest populations in the world regularly consume them.
Dietary Habits of the World’s Healthiest Populations
The Blue Zones are populations with the longest life expectancies,
highest centenarian rates, and lowest rates of chronic & degenerative
disease [51]. Five “longevity hot spots” have been identified and
studied by research teams led by explorer Dan Buettner.
The Blue Zones
• Ikaria, Greece: A variation of the Mediterranean diet, rich in
olive oil, fruits, vegetables (wild greens), whole grains, fruit and
a little fish. Goat milk and wine (about 2 glasses per day) are also
traditional. Coffee and tea are consumed regularly.
• Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda, California: Vegetarian diet
rich in beans & nuts, low EPA/DHA intake, high intake of the
plant-derived omega-6 fatty acid, no alcoholic beverage
consumption.
• Nicoya, Costa Rica: Black beans, white rice, corn tortillas, squash, eggs
(mostly fried), and fruit are staples. More meat (mainly chicken & pork)
and fruit is consumed compared to other blue zones. The water is very
high in minerals, especially calcium due to the regions limestone
bedrock. Coffee is drank daily, sweetened with raw sugar cane.
• Sardinia, Italy: Plant-dominant diet, large quantities of dark red wine,
fava beans, and barley are consumed. Goat milk & goat cheese are
staples. Meat intake (lamb, lean pork, oily fish, and shellfish) is modest
& infrequent. Coffee is drank daily.
• Okinawa, Japan: Plant-dominant diet, large amounts of various types
of seaweed are consumed. Staples include sweet potatoes, soy beans
& soy products such as tofu & miso, white rice, and tea. Raw sugar is
eaten with snacks. Minor consumption of fish & pork. The diet is very
high-carb, very low-fat. Virtually no eggs or dairy.
Dietary Commonalities Among the Blue Zones
• Largely plant-based.
• No over-eating.
• Foods are locally or home-grown & home-prepared.
• Carbohydrate (largely from starch) is the predominant
macronutrient.
• Beans, including fava, black, soy and lentils, are the
cornerstone of most centenarian diets.
• 3 of the 5 zones are regular coffee consumers.
• 4 of the 5 zones are regular alcohol consumers.
• All 5 zones are regular consumers of grains & legumes.
• None of the zones follow a Paleo-type diet.
http://www.nsca.com/uploadedfiles/nsca/inactive_content/program_books/ptc_2013_program_book/aragon.pdf
Agreed with your post. No qualms with it.
But again, I don't think anybody was saying the rules of the Paleo diet are the ones to live by. Not all grains are the same, no doubt. Legumes affect different people differently. Same with dairy, and dairy varies widely on quality and source. So it's hard to be too dogmatic about those. I agree.
What a few of us ARE saying is that those Blue Zones sure don't look like a SAD with moderation.
And just throwing this out there, if more and more of the world is adopting the SAD (which they are), it's kind of easy to be healthy by comparison. It's getting easier to be a Blue Zone. Just don't do what North America is doing.
You're arguing, though, with people who aren't necessarily following SAD and presuming they are. Why do that?
I never said the people that I am debating with (arguing makes it more personal which I did not intend) follow SAD. I am commenting on SAD itself. Not the people I am debating with.0 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »BrownTown14 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »
Yeah! And if that caveman was here with us right now, he would also get to enjoy our buffet of diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, autoimmune disease, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease and a host of neurological disease.
that may be the most ridiculous statement I have seen on here in a while.
why is modern mans life span almost three times that of our paleolithic brethren if we are dining from a buffet of diabetes, cancer, etc?????
Because that's not what killed paleolithic man.
Infant mortality, infection, trauma from predators tend to kill you sooner than the above conditions. Especially infant mortality no? Those are what killed paleolithic man. We are kind of protected from those things to a larger degree this day and age.
And the lack of those chronic diseases above isn't limited to the paleolithic era... They were all rare as hens teeth prior to the 1900s. They existed, but were very isolated case reports compared to today.
And the argument that we live longer to get these diseases today does not explain the 40 year olds with heart attacks, autoimmune disease affecting any age, higher incidence of cancer in 30 year olds, diabetes in teenagers (type II, not type I), and obese infants. Not to mention neurodegenerative diseases.
the other thing, is that paleolithic death causes were nice and quick. The other causes, aside from that monster heart attack, all take their sweet time.
from what I understand about the paleo diet, it isn't about preventing death, but more about preventing suffering.
Now, you could make an argument that life without deep and delicious cakes or McDonald's or whatever is also suffering. That would be a valid point. But you turn back the clock even no more than a hundred years, and those modern foods didn't exist. And many people seemed to be quite happy despite those things not being in their lives.
So people in the Paleolithic era were disease free, really?
Please provide back up for your claim that diseases were rare before the 1900's. Perhaps, people believed they were rare because they could not diagnose them as accurately...
So all people dying post paleolithic are suffering, really?
you really just need to stop with the ridiculousness....
Hey man, no need to get angry, I wasn't looking for a fight, just stating a viewpoint.
Paleolithic people were not disease free. I didn't say that. They just didn't have the same diseases. The chronic diseases in question were not even close to the main causes of death before 1900. Or even 1950.
Yes, we can diagnose them more accurately now pre-death. But autopsies have been around for quite a while, it was the main method of learning for doctors for thousands of years. And the clinical manifestations of these chronic diseases are dead easy to diagnose in their advanced stages, lending themselves quite easily to description. Pens (quills) and paper have been around for a while.
Of course, there were single cases here and there of diabetes (can be easily diagnosed back in the day as Dr.s tasted the urine for sweetness, gangrene of the limbs would have been seen, along with DKA and the smell of ketones on the breath, and kidney atrophy would have been seen at autopsy), autoimmune disease (the subluxations deformities and nodules of RA can be diagnosed by a blind man, discoid lupus is dead easy to spot, along with a malar rash, scleroderma, ankylosing spondylitis you can see from a mile away in its advanced stages, same with psoriasis), coronary artery disease (a 5 year old can spot this on autopsy), and cancers (in their advances stages would hit the autopsy guy in the face - they would actually have a hard time separating normal anatomy from tumor because the metastasis is often so widespread at the end). Alzheimer's would have been a bit tougher to diagnose back in the day because there were many reasons people would not be "all there", but again, in its advanced stages, distinct preferential parietal and temporal lobe atrophy is often seen at autopsy that would stick out to anyone.
So why were these not described with hourly frequency back in the 1900s??? There was no treatment for any of these things, so the florid advanced stages of the diseases should have been readily apparent, instead of the more subtle early partially treated findings we see today.
The stats of today are that these will affect virtually everyone. That's a far cry from the scant case reports prior to 1900. There should be millions of case reports of these diseases if today's statistics apply to the past.
And all that isn't doesn't even include obesity itself, which school children diagnose on the playground every day in the form of bullying, so I'm sure doctors wouldn't have had a problem. Sure, you could say that food is more abundant now, but then, wouldn't all the rich people in history have been fat??? A few were, but not even close to all the people who were rich throughout history (who had more access to food than you or I).
Not angry at all, I am just pointing out the some of your claims are bordering on ridiculous.
If someone died in 1850 at age 40 there was no way to determine if that was from lung cancer, or some other cause, so it is kind of hard to say that instances of cancer and disease were less pre 1900's.
Also, if you have some peer reviewed literature on the matter of disease pre 1900 vs post, then I would be happy to take a look at it.
Obesity is caused from overeating. Yes, food is more abundant today than it was in say the 1550's so it would stand to reason that you have more instances of obesity when food is more abundant.
Why would you assume that ALL rich people in history would be fat? A more realistic assumption is that some were fat and some were not, as some were active and some were not. Why do we have to jump to the conclusion that because all rich people in history were not fat that this somehow mans their diet was superior to a modern day one?0 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »Yes, hunter gatherers have other problems, but not diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, autoimmune disease etc as described above.
Half of them are dead by age 15.
I'll take late-life alzheimers over that, 10 times out of 10.
Perfectly fair!!! That's why I don't believe in evangelizing paleo (or anything). Choosing the enjoyment of modern uhm...."created" ... foods over diseases that you could potentially acquire later in life is a perfectly valid choice to make!!!!!0 -
MarziPanda95 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate
As a primal diet/exercise guy, I actually agree with your statement. Things like grass-fed grass-finished lamb, grass-fed grass-finished beef, and the modern organic versions of fruits and vegetables are probably not what real paleolithic people ate.
But I am very very very certain that the those foods are much closer to what paleolithic people ate in comparison to pop tarts, donuts, pizza, candy bars, frozen dinners, McDonalds, twinkies, cupcakes, bread, mystery meat, glow in the dark crackers, coca cola, lucky charms, count chocula, muffins, croissants, and french fries that will stay mould free until the year 2089.
And? Closer doesn't equal the same. Those things in your first paragraph are also closer to what pre-Industrial Revolution people ate. Why aren't we calling it the pre-industrial diet?
Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those things in your second paragraph within the context of a well-balanced diet.
Those foods in the second paragraph were never on the list of a balanced diet in the pre-industrial revolution, ghengis khan's empire, middle ages, roman empire, greek empire, ancient egypt, neolithic revolution, and the revolution of 5 guys named grok, smok, bok, lok, and oshbegok against 5 other guys with the same name around some bonfire 20,000 years ago.
Untrue. You listed bread. Bread is one of the oldest foods out there, along with cheese. It has been made pretty much as long as there have been civilizations - so yes, people ate grains and dairy in the pre-industrial era, in Ghengis Khan's empire, in the middle ages, in the Roman Empire, in the Greek Empire, in Ancient Egypt etc.
Humans have also always suffered from cancer. Some of the ancient skeletons we have found have been riddled with cancer. Even recently an Egyptian mummy was examined and she was found to have had breast cancer.
It is thought that several millions of years ago, a gene entered our evolutionary line that allowed us to communicate and talk in the complicated way that we do, that no other animal can do. This gene is thought to have also brought us cancer. Animals also get cancer, and many of them also get the other diseases that have been mentioned. Most of them are not about diet, they are about genes - only type 2 diabetes, out of those listed, is diet related. Type 1 is not.
I don't have an opinion on the Paleo diet/'pre industrial diet' either way, I'm just a historian who wasn't happy with the misinformation here.
I love how people have this assumption that everyone was just happy and disease free from 1000 BC to 1900, and all of sudden from 1901 forward we became disease riddled, obese, grumpy, people....0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »The nutritional properties of grains are far exceeded by veggies/fruits - so why bother. Not only that, I love the taste of veggies and fruit - so I would rather eat them over a grain - and it's helluva a lot easier - since I don't have to bake my own bread to do so (as an example). It's easy cheesy to eat fruits/veggies with a Vitamix (as another example).
We have some differences here: I don't think there's "risk" with whole grains or that you have to bake your own bread to eat them (you yourself eat grains as you mentioned--rice--and the main source of grain in my diet probably is oats (although it varies). I am also always meaning to eat more grains such as barley and buckwheat, etc. Also, there are good sources of whole grain bread and other products, including pasta, depending on what your concern is. That said, I kind of like baking bread and wanting to get back to it some day is one reason I could never really be paleo. Well, and I enjoy making pie too.
Also, frankly, I don't enjoy eating fruits and veggies in smoothie form nearly as much as I enjoy them--especially greens--in a more whole form, not all blended up. I don't think there's anything wrong with blending them up, but it makes them less satisfying to me and dilutes their flavors.
That said, I actually do agree that grains are likely somewhat overrated as to their likely nutritional benefits (but there is a correlation so I think it's foolish to assume we know everything possible) and that for the most part veggies and (maybe) fruits are better IF you had to choose between them, but of course you don't. More significantly, I too like veggies and fruits better--to me a meal isn't a meal without veggies, but you don't need a starchy carb, although it can be nice to have one. That's one reason why I was attracted to paleo. But upon doing it for a bit and further reflection I realized that if I was happy cutting these foods because I wasn't that into them (but for certain exceptions that I eat in moderation) it seemed silly to inconvenience myself by avoiding them. If a convenient lunch place by my office makes delicious and healthy sandwiches on whole grain bread, why exclude it as an option? Similarly, why not be able to have lentil stew or the like?Beyond that - eating a whole foods, nutrient-dense source of is the wisest decision anyone can make.
I happen to agree with you on this. I don't think it's actually the debate when we are discussing the benefits of paleo. Many whole-foods-based, nutrient-dense diets will include grains, legumes, and dairy. Also, to bring in a separate discussion, one can certainly eat such a diet and have other foods included from time to time.I think the fair question to ask is whether CICO should also apply a principle of good nutrition (calories-in part).
CICO is just a statement of fact, not a diet.
If you are asking whether we think a good diet should be based on good nutrition, of course. At least, speaking for myself.Not all foods provide it. Some are more nutrient-dense than others.
Yes, of course. I don't think anyone argues with this.I believe Paleo, if done properly, is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
If you define something being done properly as considering principles of good nutrition (as I assume you do, and so do I), this is a truism. Any diet "done properly" would then be a healthy way to eat.
The question is whether all else equal cutting out grains, legumes, and dairy makes a diet MORE healthy. I don't believe it does.
CICO encompasses having a diet. You can't take Calories-In without having a diet (food). That requires a nutritional profile of the foods you are eating. You can't escape it.
LOLWUT?
CICO refers simply to energy balance, period.
CI>CO => Gain weight.
CI=CO => Maintain.
CI<CO => Lose weight.
Nutritional profile is a completely separate issue.
CI = Calories In - if you don't eat, no calories
CO = Calories Out - energy expenditure - what your body does to utilize the energy.
Sorry but you can't separate it.0 -
MarziPanda95 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate
As a primal diet/exercise guy, I actually agree with your statement. Things like grass-fed grass-finished lamb, grass-fed grass-finished beef, and the modern organic versions of fruits and vegetables are probably not what real paleolithic people ate.
But I am very very very certain that the those foods are much closer to what paleolithic people ate in comparison to pop tarts, donuts, pizza, candy bars, frozen dinners, McDonalds, twinkies, cupcakes, bread, mystery meat, glow in the dark crackers, coca cola, lucky charms, count chocula, muffins, croissants, and french fries that will stay mould free until the year 2089.
And? Closer doesn't equal the same. Those things in your first paragraph are also closer to what pre-Industrial Revolution people ate. Why aren't we calling it the pre-industrial diet?
Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those things in your second paragraph within the context of a well-balanced diet.
Those foods in the second paragraph were never on the list of a balanced diet in the pre-industrial revolution, ghengis khan's empire, middle ages, roman empire, greek empire, ancient egypt, neolithic revolution, and the revolution of 5 guys named grok, smok, bok, lok, and oshbegok against 5 other guys with the same name around some bonfire 20,000 years ago.
Untrue. You listed bread. Bread is one of the oldest foods out there, along with cheese. It has been made pretty much as long as there have been civilizations - so yes, people ate grains and dairy in the pre-industrial era, in Ghengis Khan's empire, in the middle ages, in the Roman Empire, in the Greek Empire, in Ancient Egypt etc.
Humans have also always suffered from cancer. Some of the ancient skeletons we have found have been riddled with cancer. Even recently an Egyptian mummy was examined and she was found to have had breast cancer.
It is thought that several millions of years ago, a gene entered our evolutionary line that allowed us to communicate and talk in the complicated way that we do, that no other animal can do. This gene is thought to have also brought us cancer. Animals also get cancer, and many of them also get the other diseases that have been mentioned. Most of them are not about diet, they are about genes - only type 2 diabetes, out of those listed, is diet related. Type 1 is not.
I don't have an opinion on the Paleo diet/'pre industrial diet' either way, I'm just a historian who wasn't happy with the misinformation here.
Yes, sorry, I slipped up on bread. When I put that in there I was referencing paleolithic times in my mind, not what came after the neolithic revolution.
I am not arguing that the chronic diseases (including cancer) of today didn't exist throughout history. I am arguing that the prevalence of these conditions was astronomically smaller per capita before the current era.
Virtually all acquired diseases of adulthood or late childhood do have a genetic basis, but expression is determined by a multitude of factors, much of which is environmental. Diet is a massive constant environmental exposure. We all put pounds of food into our bodies at least 3 times a day. Even over the last 100 years, the composition of diet has drastically changed, away from the types of foods (note I did not say the EXACT foods, just the types) that have been traditionally consumed. True, the impact is not accurately quantified to this date, but to write it off as having zero impact??
The literature is littered with data on the effects of so many components of diet and different diseases. So many that posting one or two studies just reduces the impact of the point.
Effect of diet is absolutely not limited to type II DM. All of the aforementioned chronic diseases have literature support when it comes to diet. Even Type I DM. It is an autoimmune disease. And the literature is in line with other autoimmune diseases and potential exposure triggers.
If that is indeed the case - that the common belief is that you just "get" diseases based on your genes.... well, then I can see why some people aren't worried about what food they eat and instead focus on how much.1 -
Has anyone bought this program? What are your thoughts on it? I'm having trouble finding a review online that isn't sponsored by these guys.
More info: I'm really tempted by it because I do like the PaleoLeap recipes and I could use some short-term accountability, but I'm not willing to go 100% paleo. I'm good friends with dairy and oat bran. Is there room for flexibility in the program? Also, do they really mean it when they say it's a one-time fee?
You might want to look into the Atkins diet. Atkins has a bad rep because he wasn't exactly charismatic, but I've lost a ton of weight following the diet -- which, after the first two weeks, is extremely flexible.
The best part is that because the Atkins company is mainly trying to pedal their products (which taste gross, so I don't recommend), they give away the actual diet information and tools to follow it, for free.
It very closely resembles paleo, lots of fruits and veg, mostly protein and fat based -- but allows dairy, nuts and legumes.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »The nutritional properties of grains are far exceeded by veggies/fruits - so why bother. Not only that, I love the taste of veggies and fruit - so I would rather eat them over a grain - and it's helluva a lot easier - since I don't have to bake my own bread to do so (as an example). It's easy cheesy to eat fruits/veggies with a Vitamix (as another example).
We have some differences here: I don't think there's "risk" with whole grains or that you have to bake your own bread to eat them (you yourself eat grains as you mentioned--rice--and the main source of grain in my diet probably is oats (although it varies). I am also always meaning to eat more grains such as barley and buckwheat, etc. Also, there are good sources of whole grain bread and other products, including pasta, depending on what your concern is. That said, I kind of like baking bread and wanting to get back to it some day is one reason I could never really be paleo. Well, and I enjoy making pie too.
Also, frankly, I don't enjoy eating fruits and veggies in smoothie form nearly as much as I enjoy them--especially greens--in a more whole form, not all blended up. I don't think there's anything wrong with blending them up, but it makes them less satisfying to me and dilutes their flavors.
That said, I actually do agree that grains are likely somewhat overrated as to their likely nutritional benefits (but there is a correlation so I think it's foolish to assume we know everything possible) and that for the most part veggies and (maybe) fruits are better IF you had to choose between them, but of course you don't. More significantly, I too like veggies and fruits better--to me a meal isn't a meal without veggies, but you don't need a starchy carb, although it can be nice to have one. That's one reason why I was attracted to paleo. But upon doing it for a bit and further reflection I realized that if I was happy cutting these foods because I wasn't that into them (but for certain exceptions that I eat in moderation) it seemed silly to inconvenience myself by avoiding them. If a convenient lunch place by my office makes delicious and healthy sandwiches on whole grain bread, why exclude it as an option? Similarly, why not be able to have lentil stew or the like?Beyond that - eating a whole foods, nutrient-dense source of is the wisest decision anyone can make.
I happen to agree with you on this. I don't think it's actually the debate when we are discussing the benefits of paleo. Many whole-foods-based, nutrient-dense diets will include grains, legumes, and dairy. Also, to bring in a separate discussion, one can certainly eat such a diet and have other foods included from time to time.I think the fair question to ask is whether CICO should also apply a principle of good nutrition (calories-in part).
CICO is just a statement of fact, not a diet.
If you are asking whether we think a good diet should be based on good nutrition, of course. At least, speaking for myself.Not all foods provide it. Some are more nutrient-dense than others.
Yes, of course. I don't think anyone argues with this.I believe Paleo, if done properly, is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
If you define something being done properly as considering principles of good nutrition (as I assume you do, and so do I), this is a truism. Any diet "done properly" would then be a healthy way to eat.
The question is whether all else equal cutting out grains, legumes, and dairy makes a diet MORE healthy. I don't believe it does.
CICO encompasses having a diet. You can't take Calories-In without having a diet (food). That requires a nutritional profile of the foods you are eating. You can't escape it.
LOLWUT?
CICO refers simply to energy balance, period.
CI>CO => Gain weight.
CI=CO => Maintain.
CI<CO => Lose weight.
Nutritional profile is a completely separate issue.
CI = Calories In - if you don't eat, no calories
CO = Calories Out - energy expenditure - what your body does to utilize the energy.
Sorry but you can't separate it.
And nutritional profile (macro/micro nutrients) are not relevant to CICO.
0 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »
Yes, sorry, I slipped up on bread. When I put that in there I was referencing paleolithic times in my mind, not what came after the neolithic revolution.
I am not arguing that the chronic diseases (including cancer) of today didn't exist throughout history. I am arguing that the prevalence of these conditions was astronomically smaller per capita before the current era.
Virtually all acquired diseases of adulthood or late childhood do have a genetic basis, but expression is determined by a multitude of factors, much of which is environmental. Diet is a massive constant environmental exposure. Even over the last 100 years, the composition of diet has drastically changed, away from the types of foods (note I did not say the EXACT foods, just the types) that have been traditionally consumed. True, the impact is not accurately quantified to this date, but to write it off as having zero impact??
The literature is littered with data on the effects of so many components of diet and different diseases. So many that posting one or two studies just reduces the impact of the point.
Effect of diet is absolutely not limited to type II DM. All of the aforementioned chronic diseases have literature support when it comes to diet. Even Type I DM. It is an autoimmune disease. And the literature is in line with other autoimmune diseases and potential exposure triggers.
If that is indeed the case - that the common belief is that you just "get" diseases based on your genes.... well, then I can see why some people aren't worried about what food they eat and instead focus on how much.
There are tons of reasons for why disease is greater these days; exponential growth of population, genetics, poor nutrition, and antibotics all come into play. To believe that following one specific diet will automatically make you immune to disease is quite obtuse.
0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »
Yeah! And if that caveman was here with us right now, he would also get to enjoy our buffet of diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, autoimmune disease, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease and a host of neurological disease.
No, instead they died before they were 30 years old from malnutrition and common viral and bacterial infections. They didn't get old enough to have most of the chronic illnesses you listed.0 -
People (at least in the US) constantly misapply words. They are misapplied so often that soon they take on a new meaning.
I agree, and that's why it doesn't bother me--the meaning to me is separate from how paleo people actually ate.
But again, if I were invested in learning about and spreading accurate knowledge about the paleo era, the fact that this spreads misunderstanding would bother me. Also, so far most of those who promote the diet DO claim it's related to how people actually ate. But I don't normally complain about the use of the term in the absence of those claims. (I know lots of people who eat "paleo" to some extent and I never bring up the name of the diet at all, since don't claim it's a genuine recreation of how people ate.)I believe however that the IIFYM group has their extremists also. I say that while my own preference to eating closely follows that path.
Oh, I'm sure it does. I'm not into any particular diet (beyond what I've decided works for me specifically) and don't like it when anyone claims that everyone else would be better off doing some particular thing, even "moderation."0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Those blue zone folks sure eat healthfully!FunkyTobias wrote: »If grains, legumes, dairy, etc. are so bad, please explain why the healthiest populations in the world regularly consume them.
Dietary Habits of the World’s Healthiest Populations
The Blue Zones are populations with the longest life expectancies,
highest centenarian rates, and lowest rates of chronic & degenerative
disease [51]. Five “longevity hot spots” have been identified and
studied by research teams led by explorer Dan Buettner.
The Blue Zones
• Ikaria, Greece: A variation of the Mediterranean diet, rich in
olive oil, fruits, vegetables (wild greens), whole grains, fruit and
a little fish. Goat milk and wine (about 2 glasses per day) are also
traditional. Coffee and tea are consumed regularly.
• Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda, California: Vegetarian diet
rich in beans & nuts, low EPA/DHA intake, high intake of the
plant-derived omega-6 fatty acid, no alcoholic beverage
consumption.
• Nicoya, Costa Rica: Black beans, white rice, corn tortillas, squash, eggs
(mostly fried), and fruit are staples. More meat (mainly chicken & pork)
and fruit is consumed compared to other blue zones. The water is very
high in minerals, especially calcium due to the regions limestone
bedrock. Coffee is drank daily, sweetened with raw sugar cane.
• Sardinia, Italy: Plant-dominant diet, large quantities of dark red wine,
fava beans, and barley are consumed. Goat milk & goat cheese are
staples. Meat intake (lamb, lean pork, oily fish, and shellfish) is modest
& infrequent. Coffee is drank daily.
• Okinawa, Japan: Plant-dominant diet, large amounts of various types
of seaweed are consumed. Staples include sweet potatoes, soy beans
& soy products such as tofu & miso, white rice, and tea. Raw sugar is
eaten with snacks. Minor consumption of fish & pork. The diet is very
high-carb, very low-fat. Virtually no eggs or dairy.
Dietary Commonalities Among the Blue Zones
• Largely plant-based.
• No over-eating.
• Foods are locally or home-grown & home-prepared.
• Carbohydrate (largely from starch) is the predominant
macronutrient.
• Beans, including fava, black, soy and lentils, are the
cornerstone of most centenarian diets.
• 3 of the 5 zones are regular coffee consumers.
• 4 of the 5 zones are regular alcohol consumers.
• All 5 zones are regular consumers of grains & legumes.
• None of the zones follow a Paleo-type diet.
http://www.nsca.com/uploadedfiles/nsca/inactive_content/program_books/ptc_2013_program_book/aragon.pdf
Yes, they do. I think considering those diets is a sensible thing to do, and it's both something I take into account in thinking about my own diet and part of why the paleo claims aren't convincing to me.
The particular claims in this thread leaning towards disease prevention are quite disturbing and woo-like, if you ask me.
This is true. To a certain extent I think humans are drawn to think we can control things we can't, and one unfortunate side effect is to suggest that ANY disease must be the result of factors we could control--if we only ate better we wouldn't get cancer or the like. It's a way to make yourself crazy and also can result in blaming people who get sick for their own illness.
(Back in the day I know Bill Maher used to make such arguments from a "clean eating" and vegetarian POV. Not sure if he still does, and of course he's no authority, but it's a common thing.)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions