Do Paleo-eaters hate Darwin?

k8blujay2

again...it's simply about putting quality foods into the only body I have. It doesn't mean I can't enjoy cake and ice cream every once in a while.

I do that, too. I just call it eating.

Right! I have made some pretty awesome (and from scratch) Italian Cream cakes... with toasted coconut (that I toasted myself)... if that ain't quality right there... I don't know what is. :drinker:


Now I want cake.

yes but...sugar.
sugar = not quality "foods"

What about sugar? There is nothing wrong with a bit of sugar here and there... It is quite literally the sweetness of life. Your definition of quality and my definition of quality seem to be two totally different things.

SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish

Well, this is another issue where "you are both right" and it can be confusing. It is true that consuming grains cannot by itself cause obesity in everyone, because the obesity epidemic is a recent factor. But, the time period we have had agriculture around and eaten grains is not very long evolutionarily. Some people would be more, some less adapted to eating that kind of food, nobody optimally, especially in view of it not being the only fuel, and no real advantage evolutionarily of being perfectly adapted to eating grain as a food. If you actually learn the principles of adaptation in evolution, you have to have a massive advantage for it to cause an effect in the short term evolutionarily. Even throwing out that erroneous idea of we are adapted to it, and even though we were eating grains for much longer, the fact that the obesity epidemic is recent does not exclude grain crops as a factor. Especially when you look at what happens to insulin with high carbs and especially when you add in a more recent event: refined/bleached/processed grains that are completely free of fiber and other portions of the plant.

The current issues for obesity include the fact that one eats a higher carb diet, which increases insulin production and predisposes you to store more energy, you block some of the fat burning signal coming from fat produced leptin that would up your metabolism by eating this diet, you are eating excess calories available to store because you arent as full on less bulk/fiber and foods are more calorie dense and altered in a formula to enhance the flavor to increase consumption, and the possibility you may or may not have an inflammatory response from the wheat. This all together added to the fact you are moving less and are less active throughout daily life as conveniences, jobs and locations to more population density change, it doesn't take much to figure out you will gain weight on average and the obesity epidemic is perfectly reasonable and explained.

So yup, you will lose weight by increasing activity and watching what you will eat, and yup you can enhance that and lose more faster by altering what you eat towards more protein/fat and less carbs, and you may enhance that further by taking away anything that causes an inflammatory response (could be many things other than wheat too). But, if someone only wants to do the first, thats great!

Personally, I think the probability of sticking to the changed lifestyle is more important that maximizing these other factors. If you can do it, great! If you can't, just exercise and reduce calories somewhat, great!

msf74

Since the theory of evolution completely destroys the logic of paleo-dieting?

Actually you could argue that Paleo dieting is perfectly compatible with Darwinism and is in fact Darwinian medicine.

Escalating chronic diseases of civilisation could be seen as the conflict of our evolved genome against the relatively new conditions of life and affluence which has resulted in the nutritional qualities of food which the genome is rebelling against. As such the proliferation of diseased bodies is evolution's way of weeding out the weak who do not have the genetic capability to survive the change.

Don't ask me though. I am to busy running around saying "oh my gawd, Pop Terts..."

RivenV

ldrosophila

Since the theory of evolution completely destroys the logic of paleo-dieting?

Actually you could argue that Paleo dieting is perfectly compatible with Darwinism and is in fact Darwinian medicine.

Escalating chronic diseases of civilisation could be seen as the conflict of our evolved genome against the relatively new conditions of life and affluence which has resulted in the nutritional qualities of food which the genome is rebelling against. As such the proliferation of diseased bodies is evolution's way of weeding out the weak who do not have the genetic capability to survive the change.

Don't ask me though. I am to busy running around saying "oh my gawd, Pop Terts..."

Hmmmm, but the chronic diseases do not usually affect us until we are adults and have reproduced.

Although there is a new emergence of children with type II and heart disease, so there could be some truth to that if those children have reduced fertility.

And to think about it PCOS which in many cases is r/t weight and food consumption reduces fertility.

Interesting thought, but wait is there any evidence that a paleo diet would increase fertility or improve the genetic fitness of a population? And then it comes back to my original though what the h_ll is a paleo diet?

PapaverSomniferum

misread this as

"Paleo-eaters ate Darwin"

is human flesh paleo??

probably yes..as long as it is not processed...

can confirm

http://www.livescience.com/1187-neanderthals-cannibals-study-confirms.html

jenn26point2

Well, this is another issue where "you are both right" and it can be confusing. It is true that consuming grains cannot by itself cause obesity in everyone, because the obesity epidemic is a recent factor. But, the time period we have had agriculture around and eaten grains is not very long evolutionarily. Some people would be more, some less adapted to eating that kind of food, nobody optimally, especially in view of it not being the only fuel, and no real advantage evolutionarily of being perfectly adapted to eating grain as a food. If you actually learn the principles of adaptation in evolution, you have to have a massive advantage for it to cause an effect in the short term evolutionarily. Even throwing out that erroneous idea of we are adapted to it, and even though we were eating grains for much longer, the fact that the obesity epidemic is recent does not exclude grain crops as a factor. Especially when you look at what happens to insulin with high carbs and especially when you add in a more recent event: refined/bleached/processed grains that are completely free of fiber and other portions of the plant.

The current issues for obesity include the fact that one eats a higher carb diet, which increases insulin production and predisposes you to store more energy, you block some of the fat burning signal coming from fat produced leptin that would up your metabolism by eating this diet, you are eating excess calories available to store because you arent as full on less bulk/fiber and foods are more calorie dense and altered in a formula to enhance the flavor to increase consumption, and the possibility you may or may not have an inflammatory response from the wheat. This all together added to the fact you are moving less and are less active throughout daily life as conveniences, jobs and locations to more population density change, it doesn't take much to figure out you will gain weight on average and the obesity epidemic is perfectly reasonable and explained.

So yup, you will lose weight by increasing activity and watching what you will eat, and yup you can enhance that and lose more faster by altering what you eat towards more protein/fat and less carbs, and you may enhance that further by taking away anything that causes an inflammatory response (could be many things other than wheat too). But, if someone only wants to do the first, thats great!

Personally, I think the probability of sticking to the changed lifestyle is more important that maximizing these other factors. If you can do it, great! If you can't, just exercise and reduce calories somewhat, great!

Perfect. Thank you.

jenn26point2

Since the theory of evolution completely destroys the logic of paleo-dieting?

Actually you could argue that Paleo dieting is perfectly compatible with Darwinism and is in fact Darwinian medicine.

Escalating chronic diseases of civilisation could be seen as the conflict of our evolved genome against the relatively new conditions of life and affluence which has resulted in the nutritional qualities of food which the genome is rebelling against. As such the proliferation of diseased bodies is evolution's way of weeding out the weak who do not have the genetic capability to survive the change.

Don't ask me though. I am to busy running around saying "oh my gawd, Pop Terts..."

Another valid point.

_John_

Darwinistic success is about who breeds. Therefore adequate calories is all that is required. It doesn't take that much to make it as the world is proving. The most "successful" nations as viewed through human eyes are not the most successful societies in natures eyes right now.

And I imagine its the third world countries that are most likely to eat "Paleo".

corn, peanuts and wheat are strong in diets of poorer countries, but I get what you are saying.

jenn26point2

Since the theory of evolution completely destroys the logic of paleo-dieting?

Actually you could argue that Paleo dieting is perfectly compatible with Darwinism and is in fact Darwinian medicine.

Escalating chronic diseases of civilisation could be seen as the conflict of our evolved genome against the relatively new conditions of life and affluence which has resulted in the nutritional qualities of food which the genome is rebelling against. As such the proliferation of diseased bodies is evolution's way of weeding out the weak who do not have the genetic capability to survive the change.

Don't ask me though. I am to busy running around saying "oh my gawd, Pop Terts..."

Hmmmm, but the chronic diseases do not usually affect us until we are adults and have reproduced.

Although there is a new emergence of children with type II and heart disease, so there could be some truth to that if those children have reduced fertility.

And to think about it PCOS which in many cases is r/t weight and food consumption reduces fertility.

Interesting thought, but wait is there any evidence that a paleo diet would increase fertility or improve the genetic fitness of a population? And then it comes back to my original though what the h_ll is a paleo diet?

And yet another valid point.

To touch on the PCOS question. I don't have personal experience but there are a lot of people who claim that getting rid of the chemical laden, nutritionally stripped and then fortified processed foods from their diet (i.e. grains, boxed meals, etc, etc, etc, etc) and sticking with fresh meats, veggies, fruits, nuts, etc, etc, etc, as defined by both the paleo diets and the primal blueprint diets made it possible for their PCOS to clear up and made pregnancy possible for them when it wasn't prior. But, that's just anecdotal evidence and I don't know if it's been studied/confirmed.

LvLite

Seriously! Or GMO foods or petroleum.. amazing in the US so many foods are allowed that are banned in other countries!

rml_16

Seriously! Or GMO foods or petroleum.. amazing in the US so many foods are allowed that are banned in other countries!

Other countries have GMO. They simply have their own companies supplying it.

You've never put Vaseline on your lips? Know what that's made of? Hasn't killed me yet ...

UsedToBeHusky

Seriously! Or GMO foods or petroleum.. amazing in the US so many foods are allowed that are banned in other countries!

Other countries have GMO. They simply have their own companies supplying it.

You've never put Vaseline on your lips? Know what that's made of? Hasn't killed me yet ...

Most lip glosses are made with petroleum jelly.

rml_16

Seriously! Or GMO foods or petroleum.. amazing in the US so many foods are allowed that are banned in other countries!

Other countries have GMO. They simply have their own companies supplying it.

You've never put Vaseline on your lips? Know what that's made of? Hasn't killed me yet ...

Most lip glosses are made with petroleum jelly.

I figured. I was going to check my ingredients on the Chapstick lying on me desk, but forgot. I assume it has some, too.

Just because a substance can be used to make something toxic (oil and gasoline) doesn't mean the substance itself is toxic. The oil they pull out of the ground is the long-dead bodies of ancient animals.

UsedToBeHusky

Seriously! Or GMO foods or petroleum.. amazing in the US so many foods are allowed that are banned in other countries!

Other countries have GMO. They simply have their own companies supplying it.

You've never put Vaseline on your lips? Know what that's made of? Hasn't killed me yet ...

Most lip glosses are made with petroleum jelly.

I figured. I was going to check my ingredients on the Chapstick lying on me desk, but forgot. I assume it has some, too.

Just because a substance can be used to make something toxic (oil and gasoline) doesn't mean the substance itself is toxic. The oil they pull out of the ground is the long-dead bodies of ancient animals.

There are a few organic lip glosses made with beeswax, but almost all of them are petroleum.

RivenV

misread this as

"Paleo-eaters ate Darwin"

is human flesh paleo??

probably yes..as long as it is not processed...

can confirm

http://www.livescience.com/1187-neanderthals-cannibals-study-confirms.html

I lol'd. I lol'd so hard.

rml_16

Seriously! Or GMO foods or petroleum.. amazing in the US so many foods are allowed that are banned in other countries!

Other countries have GMO. They simply have their own companies supplying it.

You've never put Vaseline on your lips? Know what that's made of? Hasn't killed me yet ...

Most lip glosses are made with petroleum jelly.

I figured. I was going to check my ingredients on the Chapstick lying on me desk, but forgot. I assume it has some, too.

Just because a substance can be used to make something toxic (oil and gasoline) doesn't mean the substance itself is toxic. The oil they pull out of the ground is the long-dead bodies of ancient animals.

There are a few organic lip glosses made with beeswax, but almost all of them are petroleum.

I have Chapstick and Blistex on my desk. Blistex has it. Chapstick doesn't have ingredients listed.

richardheath

Well, this is another issue where "you are both right" and it can be confusing. It is true that consuming grains cannot by itself cause obesity in everyone, because the obesity epidemic is a recent factor. But, the time period we have had agriculture around and eaten grains is not very long evolutionarily.

Actually, we have been eating grains for millions of years.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2013/06/03/even-our-ancestors-never-really-ate-the-paleo-diet/#.Umk-OPnIVcZ

And, just think about it for a minute. Did our ancestors suddenly wake up one day and decide to be farmers? Did they then look around, see some grain for the first time, and decide to start growing that? Or did they, perhaps, start eating the grain whenever they found it in the wild? And, gradually, clear some land, so maybe the grain they found could grow better. Next year, they came back: more grain! Eventually, there was enough grain that they could settle.

But basically, to say "we haven't had time to adapt" is totally incorrect. This is why the premise of the paleo diet is pseudoscience.

Some people would be more, some less adapted to eating that kind of food, nobody optimally, especially in view of it not being the only fuel, and no real advantage evolutionarily of being perfectly adapted to eating grain as a food.

Evolution doesn't depend on things being "perfectly adapted". It works because they are "good enough". If you were perfectly adapted to eating grain (however that might look?) then there is a grain shortage, you'd die. Humans evolved to be good enough at extracting nutrients from a wide variety of sources - things we nowadays generally call "food".

If you actually learn the principles of adaptation in evolution, you have to have a massive advantage for it to cause an effect in the short term evolutionarily.

The gene for lactose tolerance spread pretty quickly after about 10,000 tears ago. There is no requirement for it - we don't have to drink milk as adults. But, presumably, the addition of a nutritious source of protein and carbohydrate to our diet from milk made it worthwhile.

By the way - what about gut bacteria? We are really only just starting to learn about these, but they play a huge role in helping us digest food and can mutate/adapt rapidly.

So, even if we didn't have millions of years (we did) your argument is still fallacious.

Even throwing out that erroneous idea of we are adapted to it,

No - you need to throw out that erronious idea!

and even though we were eating grains for much longer,

We were.

the fact that the obesity epidemic is recent does not exclude grain crops as a factor. Especially when you look at what happens to insulin with high carbs and especially when you add in a more recent event: refined/bleached/processed grains that are completely free of fiber and other portions of the plant.

Correlation does not equal causation.

By the way, did you know that protein is also insulinogenic? So if insulin is the culprit, why doesn't eating a high protein diet cause obesity?

[Hint - it does, if you eat TOO MUCH for your calorie utilization.]

The current issues for obesity include the fact that one eats a higher carb diet, which increases insulin production and predisposes you to store more energy, you block some of the fat burning signal coming from fat produced leptin that would up your metabolism by eating this diet, you are eating excess calories available to store because you arent as full on less bulk/fiber and foods are more calorie dense and altered in a formula to enhance the flavor to increase consumption, and the possibility you may or may not have an inflammatory response from the wheat. This all together added to the fact you are moving less and are less active throughout daily life as conveniences, jobs and locations to more population density change, it doesn't take much to figure out you will gain weight on average and the obesity epidemic is perfectly reasonable and explained.

So obesity is caused by overeating. Carbohydrates are simply a convenient cause of calories and we have become more sedentary.

So yup, you will lose weight by increasing activity and watching what you will eat, and yup you can enhance that and lose more faster by altering what you eat towards more protein/fat and less carbs, and you may enhance that further by taking away anything that causes an inflammatory response (could be many things other than wheat too). But, if someone only wants to do the first, thats great!

Any evidence that altered macro ratios cause weight loss at greater/lesser extents?

As for much of the "inflammatory response" stuff - ever heard of the placebo effect? Actual, clinically diagnosed, cases of such are relatively rare.

Personally, I think the probability of sticking to the changed lifestyle is more important that maximizing these other factors. If you can do it, great! If you can't, just exercise and reduce calories somewhat, great!

No problem with that part

rml_16

Well, this is another issue where "you are both right" and it can be confusing. It is true that consuming grains cannot by itself cause obesity in everyone, because the obesity epidemic is a recent factor. But, the time period we have had agriculture around and eaten grains is not very long evolutionarily.

Actually, we have been eating grains for millions of years.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2013/06/03/even-our-ancestors-never-really-ate-the-paleo-diet/#.Umk-OPnIVcZ

And, just think about it for a minute. Did our ancestors suddenly wake up one day and decide to be farmers? Did they then look around, see some grain for the first time, and decide to start growing that? Or did they, perhaps, start eating the grain whenever they found it in the wild? And, gradually, clear some land, so maybe the grain they found could grow better. Next year, they came back: more grain! Eventually, there was enough grain that they could settle.

But basically, to say "we haven't had time to adapt" is totally incorrect. This is why the premise of the paleo diet is pseudoscience.

Some people would be more, some less adapted to eating that kind of food, nobody optimally, especially in view of it not being the only fuel, and no real advantage evolutionarily of being perfectly adapted to eating grain as a food.

Evolution doesn't depend on things being "perfectly adapted". It works because they are "good enough". If you were perfectly adapted to eating grain (however that might look?) then there is a grain shortage, you'd die. Humans evolved to be good enough at extracting nutrients from a wide variety of sources - things we nowadays generally call "food".

If you actually learn the principles of adaptation in evolution, you have to have a massive advantage for it to cause an effect in the short term evolutionarily.

The gene for lactose tolerance spread pretty quickly after about 10,000 tears ago. There is no requirement for it - we don't have to drink milk as adults. But, presumably, the addition of a nutritious source of protein and carbohydrate to our diet from milk made it worthwhile.

By the way - what about gut bacteria? We are really only just starting to learn about these, but they play a huge role in helping us digest food and can mutate/adapt rapidly.

So, even if we didn't have millions of years (we did) your argument is still fallacious.

Even throwing out that erroneous idea of we are adapted to it,

No - you need to throw out that erronious idea!

and even though we were eating grains for much longer,

We were.

the fact that the obesity epidemic is recent does not exclude grain crops as a factor. Especially when you look at what happens to insulin with high carbs and especially when you add in a more recent event: refined/bleached/processed grains that are completely free of fiber and other portions of the plant.

Correlation does not equal causation.

By the way, did you know that protein is also insulinogenic? So if insulin is the culprit, why doesn't eating a high protein diet cause obesity?

[Hint - it does, if you eat TOO MUCH for your calorie utilization.]

The current issues for obesity include the fact that one eats a higher carb diet, which increases insulin production and predisposes you to store more energy, you block some of the fat burning signal coming from fat produced leptin that would up your metabolism by eating this diet, you are eating excess calories available to store because you arent as full on less bulk/fiber and foods are more calorie dense and altered in a formula to enhance the flavor to increase consumption, and the possibility you may or may not have an inflammatory response from the wheat. This all together added to the fact you are moving less and are less active throughout daily life as conveniences, jobs and locations to more population density change, it doesn't take much to figure out you will gain weight on average and the obesity epidemic is perfectly reasonable and explained.

So obesity is caused by overeating. Carbohydrates are simply a convenient cause of calories and we have become more sedentary.

So yup, you will lose weight by increasing activity and watching what you will eat, and yup you can enhance that and lose more faster by altering what you eat towards more protein/fat and less carbs, and you may enhance that further by taking away anything that causes an inflammatory response (could be many things other than wheat too). But, if someone only wants to do the first, thats great!

Any evidence that altered macro ratios cause weight loss at greater/lesser extents?

As for much of the "inflammatory response" stuff - ever heard of the placebo effect? Actual, clinically diagnosed, cases of such are relatively rare.

Personally, I think the probability of sticking to the changed lifestyle is more important that maximizing these other factors. If you can do it, great! If you can't, just exercise and reduce calories somewhat, great!

No problem with that part

Um ... marry me?

richardheath

Seriously! Or GMO foods or petroleum.. amazing in the US so many foods are allowed that are banned in other countries!

Other countries have GMO. They simply have their own companies supplying it.

You've never put Vaseline on your lips? Know what that's made of? Hasn't killed me yet ...

Actually, most of it is still Monsanto!

But it is banned elsewhere not necessarily because of it being harmful to humans when eaten, but because of the risk of spread of the resistance genes to other species etc. Or simply political pressure. It's not like Europe has some secret health data they aren't sharing with the USA. Over here, Monsanto have the politicians in their pockets. GMO is allowed. Over there, Greenpeace (or whoever) have whipped up a frenzy of opposition. GMO is banned.

There is nothing inherently wrong with GMO. Adding a gene from species X isn't going to magically make the food any less safe, and is just really a more direct way of adding certain desired traits than traditional methods.

There are many issues with the way GMO products have been entered into the marketplace though, and I'm certainly no fan of Monsanto's business model.