Paleo Restart
Options
Replies
-
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.pdf1 -
Do you already eat paleo style? If so, that's a good group. If you're considering paleo and want other paleo people's experiences with the "restart" that's a good group. If you're wondering if paleo is worthwhile and want very varied opinions, ask here.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.
I'm cool with pre-industrial revolution diet. Minus grains of course. I don't really care what the label is called.
A well-balance diet is labelled as such in the context of what people consider normal at the time. What is considered normal and well balanced now is defined by what is available and heavily includes what people can't get enough of.
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.
So you're right, all those foods can be part of any balanced diet. It's the actual definition of a balanced diet that is a freakshow in light of everything that's come before us.
balanced diet = hitting macros and micros and making sure that one is getting majority of foods from nutrient dense sources…
You are saying that is a freakshow?
oh look a poster with an empty diary that doesn't care for anyone else to see what exactly his "superior paleo" diet consists of ….
Change majority to all. I am just kidding - but it's good to read that you do endorse eating nutrient-dense foods. I was more skeptical but understand that you do like to include other foods so long as it fits into your macro and daily/weekly caloric intake.
I eat Paleo minus dairy - which consists of Kerrywood Irish Butter (if I haven't turned it into ghee), whole milk yogurt, and now the tuber (Idaho Potato - baked for the carbs). I am eating white rice (for the extra carb load for weight training) - staying away from brown rice due to its anti-nutrient properties that stop the absorption of certain vitamins and minerals.
No grains (other than rice) - just not worth it in my estimation. I can get my fiber from fruit, veggies, nuts/seeds. There's really not a good reason to eat them - there's more risk than reward. 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).
Beyond that - eating a whole foods, nutrient-dense source of is the wisest decision anyone can make. This will help facilitate a healthy life. I think the fair question to ask is whether CICO should also apply a principle of good nutrition (calories-in part). Not all foods provide it. Some are more nutrient-dense than others.
Hence why the calorie is composed of a multitude of things, macros and micros, and some are more highly qualified than others. You cannot outrun a bad diet. I believe Paleo, if done properly, is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
It's not meant to be equated with "this is what they ate in Paleolithic times" it's meant as equivalency. It's about deriving the nature of the food to understand whether that food could've existed during the time period. It's not meant to be a 1:1 comparison - even the founder of Paleo approaches the subject-matter that way.1 -
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
0 -
I was not making an argument based upon variety, but illustrating the belief that by merely eating "paleo" (whatever that that actually is since there is no coherent definition even amongst its adherents which you even acknowledge) does not guarantee "health eating."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 the point.
Yes, hunter gatherers have other problems, but not diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, autoimmune disease etc as described above.
Those hunter gatherer societies of today die by infection and trauma, same as paleolithic man. Not by a chronic disease of this side of the world. Real food doesn't cause trauma and infection for the most part. Other things caused death back then, like scraping your knee and not having antibiotics to treat the infection, a tiger biting one's head off, falling off cliffs, freezing to death, and of course, infant mortality.
What I did, in fact, was demonstrate that "eating paleo" has its own pitfalls, primarily malnutrition, and higher incidents of child mortality.
And please, define "real food." If your definition of "real food" is predicated upon an argument from incredulity -- try again -- until you can supply a definition that does not rely on "yucky."
Magical thinking. Next.BrownTown14 wrote: »The point of the paleolithic diet, or derivatives thereof, is to try to get the best of both worlds - the diet that is in line with a time when there weren't the chronic diseases of today (real food is accessible today), and the amenities of today that protect from tigers and lions and acute infections and water systems with parasites.
You mean to tell me that starvation did not exist when tribes of paleo foragers and hunters primarily existed?BrownTown14 wrote: »With respect to starvation, I'm not surprised. The ecosystem of today does not support the same amount of wildlife (aka food) that it did at a time when climate changes, pollution etc were not brought about by man.
Thanks, I learn new something everyday.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »It's about deriving the nature of the food to understand whether that food could've existed during the time period.
Why do you think this matters?
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
I am Greek. Any Greek would stipulate that grains actually aren't necessarily a staple part of the diet. It's really just freshly baked bread - which in my estimation is much better quality than American bread anyway (if you haven't had it, you are truly missing out. It is quite honestly the best bread I've ever eaten). However, beyond that, grains are not eaten by Greeks. Lentils are - I can stipulate to that but NOT to the degree probably explained here - it's used during Lent and virtually only Lent as a substitute for meat - but not grains. Grains are heavily imported in Greece. Greeks derive much of their food from veggies/fruit, goat milk - things they grow there. I have been there 4 times - since my ancestry is Greek.0 -
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.0 -
tedboosalis7 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.
I'm cool with pre-industrial revolution diet. Minus grains of course. I don't really care what the label is called.
A well-balance diet is labelled as such in the context of what people consider normal at the time. What is considered normal and well balanced now is defined by what is available and heavily includes what people can't get enough of.
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.
So you're right, all those foods can be part of any balanced diet. It's the actual definition of a balanced diet that is a freakshow in light of everything that's come before us.
balanced diet = hitting macros and micros and making sure that one is getting majority of foods from nutrient dense sources…
You are saying that is a freakshow?
oh look a poster with an empty diary that doesn't care for anyone else to see what exactly his "superior paleo" diet consists of ….
Change majority to all. I am just kidding - but it's good to read that you do endorse eating nutrient-dense foods. I was more skeptical but understand that you do like to include other foods so long as it fits into your macro and daily/weekly caloric intake.
I eat Paleo minus dairy - which consists of Kerrywood Irish Butter (if I haven't turned it into ghee), whole milk yogurt, and now the tuber (Idaho Potato - baked for the carbs). I am eating white rice (for the extra carb load for weight training) - staying away from brown rice due to its anti-nutrient properties that stop the absorption of certain vitamins and minerals.
No grains (other than rice) - just not worth it in my estimation. I can get my fiber from fruit, veggies, nuts/seeds. There's really not a good reason to eat them - there's more risk than reward. 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).
Beyond that - eating a whole foods, nutrient-dense source of is the wisest decision anyone can make. This will help facilitate a healthy life. I think the fair question to ask is whether CICO should also apply a principle of good nutrition (calories-in part). Not all foods provide it. Some are more nutrient-dense than others.
Hence why the calorie is composed of a multitude of things, macros and micros, and some are more highly qualified than others. You cannot outrun a bad diet. I believe Paleo, if done properly, is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
It's not meant to be equated with "this is what they ate in Paleolithic times" it's meant as equivalency. It's about deriving the nature of the food to understand whether that food could've existed during the time period. It's not meant to be a 1:1 comparison - even the founder of Paleo approaches the subject-matter that way.
Yeah, I agree, it's not about the dogma, but the overall approach. And glad you brought up CICO - I don't think eating less amount of food is a bad idea.
Those who preach paleo dogma seemed to have really rubbed some of you guys the wrong way, and I see why. That dogmatic stuff is stupid and myopic.0 -
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
Interesting to see the common ties, as well as the ones that they don't share, thanks for posting!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....
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions