Low Carb, Paleo. Is this nonsense or science?
Replies
-
The Science is slowing, but surely coming out more and more about eating a more whole foods way of eating.
Here is one abstract I have come across recently:
Medline Abstracts
Stone agers in the fast lane: chronic degenerative diseases in evolutionary perspective.
Am J Med 1988 Apr;84 (4):739-49
Eaton SB, Konner M, Shostak M
Department of Anthropology, School of Medicine, Emory University,
Atlanta, Georgia 30322.
From a genetic standpoint, humans living today are Stone Age hunter-gatherers displaced through time to a world that differs from that for which our genetic constitution was selected. Unlike evolutionary maladaptation, our current discordance has little effect on reproductive success; rather it acts as a potent promoter of chronic illnesses: atherosclerosis, essential hypertension, many cancers, diabetes mellitus, and obesity among others. These diseases are the results of interaction between genetically controlled biochemical processes and a myriad of biocultural influences--lifestyle factors--that include nutrition, exercise, and exposure to noxious substances. Although our genes have hardly changed, our culture has been transformed almost beyond recognition during the past 10, 000 years, especially since the Industrial Revolution. There is increasing evidence that the resulting mismatch fosters "diseases of civilization" that together cause 75 percent of all deaths in Western nations, but that are rare among persons whose lifeways reflect those of our preagricultural ancestors.0 -
Because even paleolithic people ate some grains and legumes. So completely removing a food group, just because our ancestors thousands of years ago ate less than we do, isn't really a compelling argument for total elimination in modern man.
Of course, eat what you want.
Some grains and legumes is not like today where they try and tell you to eat the majority of your food from those type of products.....
Plus, ancient people would have had to grind it up for themselves, soak it and do other preparation to make it edible, so much work went into the process of making it edible.............unlike today.
And I have had many Doctors tell me that these things we eat today are no where near what the ancient grains were. The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures.
So they processed it. Just like we do today.
'Pretty much toxic to all living creatures'? I guess that is why our survival rate has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.
Wait...
The toxicity is coming in the forms of chronic illnesses, hence the need for all these very expensive pharmaceuticals that these companies are making a killing off of..........and killing some people off too.
Wait.........
That is your opinion without a shred of scientific proof. *shrug* Clearly you a very emotionally invested in this topic, and not interested in a real give and take of ideas. So peace out on this one.0 -
Jerry,
Oh for goodness sake. I just don't know what to say to this.
Well, shoot, opinions are pretty darned important because they are often based on personal knowledge or other research on the same subject.here is what I will say….they lost weight because they used paleo, low carb, whatever to create a calorie deficit…
Paloe, IF, Low Carb, etc are not magical ways to lose weight..they are just a tool to create a calorie deficit to lose weight..
you can eat high carb/non paleo, and lose weight…
calories in vs calories out...
This isn't about losing weight.
It's not? The link you posted referenced losing weight..
Imho paleontology and low carb is bunk
No. It's about optimum health and proper nutrition.
i don't see how low carb or paleo promote optimum health and proper nutrition...
I mostly was asking about the research, not opinions. I don't mean to sound rude. I just wanted very specific information based upon the website and the research it sites.
Nope. Not true. Too many people here on MFP are anti low carb and anti Paleo. I was attempting to not get into that side of it by asking people to just stick to the research. Very few people did, but some did, and helped me gain some knowledge. The problem with people's opinions is that I don't know how true they are. If you say you ate Paleo for 6 months and dropped 12 lbs and 3% body fat. Ok. But, that's a sample of one. It's meaningless. There are too many other factors. In a controlled study, they would look at the diets of a group of people. There would be separate groups, one eating Paleo, one eating normal, and then maybe another eating low fat or something. Then you compare the groups and come up with your findings. As I'm hearing this, there is no conclusive research on this specific topic with controlled groups. But, they may have started some testing on pigs, as I understand it. So, I guess it's too early.
If as an individual, you find that eating a certain way provides benefits over eating other ways, then have at it. But, this thread was really not intended to be about people's bias or opinion, but rather I was specifically asking about the research I cited in my original post. Or, if there's other research that specifies the benefits of low carb or Paleo eating. Apparently, what I am hearing, is this does not exist right now.
Good. Then I made my point. I didn't post here for opinions. From your post count, it looks like you post a bit, but I've never seen you here. I'm here a lot. This isn't a low carb debate. I'm asking specific question of the research, not people's opinion on if low carb works. Is that difficult? I'm trying to stave off all the anti low carb patriots here. This isn't about what anyone thinks or feels. It's about what the research suggests. I'm asking to discuss the research. Not how a bowl of rice makes your belly swell.
You've missed my point. You are adamant you are that opinion on the research in the link that you provided is not part of a good discussion. Why so closed minded?.
I thought it was quite clear he was interested in the scientific research (if any) that has been done and opinions on that. How that leads to being close minded, I admit I'm baffled.0 -
Read back over the replies then. I basically said opinions on your research are important but you adamantly disagreed.
Jerry,
Oh for goodness sake. I just don't know what to say to this.
Well, shoot, opinions are pretty darned important because they are often based on personal knowledge or other research on the same subject.here is what I will say….they lost weight because they used paleo, low carb, whatever to create a calorie deficit…
Paloe, IF, Low Carb, etc are not magical ways to lose weight..they are just a tool to create a calorie deficit to lose weight..
you can eat high carb/non paleo, and lose weight…
calories in vs calories out...
This isn't about losing weight.
It's not? The link you posted referenced losing weight..
Imho paleontology and low carb is bunk
No. It's about optimum health and proper nutrition.
i don't see how low carb or paleo promote optimum health and proper nutrition...
I mostly was asking about the research, not opinions. I don't mean to sound rude. I just wanted very specific information based upon the website and the research it sites.
Nope. Not true. Too many people here on MFP are anti low carb and anti Paleo. I was attempting to not get into that side of it by asking people to just stick to the research. Very few people did, but some did, and helped me gain some knowledge. The problem with people's opinions is that I don't know how true they are. If you say you ate Paleo for 6 months and dropped 12 lbs and 3% body fat. Ok. But, that's a sample of one. It's meaningless. There are too many other factors. In a controlled study, they would look at the diets of a group of people. There would be separate groups, one eating Paleo, one eating normal, and then maybe another eating low fat or something. Then you compare the groups and come up with your findings. As I'm hearing this, there is no conclusive research on this specific topic with controlled groups. But, they may have started some testing on pigs, as I understand it. So, I guess it's too early.
If as an individual, you find that eating a certain way provides benefits over eating other ways, then have at it. But, this thread was really not intended to be about people's bias or opinion, but rather I was specifically asking about the research I cited in my original post. Or, if there's other research that specifies the benefits of low carb or Paleo eating. Apparently, what I am hearing, is this does not exist right now.
Good. Then I made my point. I didn't post here for opinions. From your post count, it looks like you post a bit, but I've never seen you here. I'm here a lot. This isn't a low carb debate. I'm asking specific question of the research, not people's opinion on if low carb works. Is that difficult? I'm trying to stave off all the anti low carb patriots here. This isn't about what anyone thinks or feels. It's about what the research suggests. I'm asking to discuss the research. Not how a bowl of rice makes your belly swell.
You've missed my point. You are adamant you are that opinion on the research in the link that you provided is not part of a good discussion. Why so closed minded?.
I have no idea what you are talking about.0 -
Then my apologies because that's not to the impression I got because of this in the original post:
Jerry,
Oh for goodness sake. I just don't know what to say to this.
Well, shoot, opinions are pretty darned important because they are often based on personal knowledge or other research on the same subject.here is what I will say….they lost weight because they used paleo, low carb, whatever to create a calorie deficit…
Paloe, IF, Low Carb, etc are not magical ways to lose weight..they are just a tool to create a calorie deficit to lose weight..
you can eat high carb/non paleo, and lose weight…
calories in vs calories out...
This isn't about losing weight.
It's not? The link you posted referenced losing weight..
Imho paleontology and low carb is bunk
No. It's about optimum health and proper nutrition.
i don't see how low carb or paleo promote optimum health and proper nutrition...
I mostly was asking about the research, not opinions. I don't mean to sound rude. I just wanted very specific information based upon the website and the research it sites.
Nope. Not true. Too many people here on MFP are anti low carb and anti Paleo. I was attempting to not get into that side of it by asking people to just stick to the research. Very few people did, but some did, and helped me gain some knowledge. The problem with people's opinions is that I don't know how true they are. If you say you ate Paleo for 6 months and dropped 12 lbs and 3% body fat. Ok. But, that's a sample of one. It's meaningless. There are too many other factors. In a controlled study, they would look at the diets of a group of people. There would be separate groups, one eating Paleo, one eating normal, and then maybe another eating low fat or something. Then you compare the groups and come up with your findings. As I'm hearing this, there is no conclusive research on this specific topic with controlled groups. But, they may have started some testing on pigs, as I understand it. So, I guess it's too early.
If as an individual, you find that eating a certain way provides benefits over eating other ways, then have at it. But, this thread was really not intended to be about people's bias or opinion, but rather I was specifically asking about the research I cited in my original post. Or, if there's other research that specifies the benefits of low carb or Paleo eating. Apparently, what I am hearing, is this does not exist right now.
Good. Then I made my point. I didn't post here for opinions. From your post count, it looks like you post a bit, but I've never seen you here. I'm here a lot. This isn't a low carb debate. I'm asking specific question of the research, not people's opinion on if low carb works. Is that difficult? I'm trying to stave off all the anti low carb patriots here. This isn't about what anyone thinks or feels. It's about what the research suggests. I'm asking to discuss the research. Not how a bowl of rice makes your belly swell.
You've missed my point. You are adamant you are that opinion on the research in the link that you provided is not part of a good discussion. Why so closed minded?.
I thought it was quite clear he was interested in the scientific research (if any) that has been done and opinions on that. How that leads to being close minded, I admit I'm baffled.I want a civil and balanced discussion, not a bunch of opinions.
The article provides several links to support claims that low carb/paleo diets are supposedly successful. As I said in an earlier post, my friend did not lose weight on paleo but her pain lessened due to her bone disease.0 -
Paleolithic era man actually ate a majority of their calories from grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables. Roughly 50% of their calories were carbs. They actually ate very similarly to today, which is one reason why we still eat that way today.Because even paleolithic people ate some grains and legumes. So completely removing a food group, just because our ancestors thousands of years ago ate less than we do, isn't really a compelling argument for total elimination in modern man.
Of course, eat what you want.
Some grains and legumes is not like today where they try and tell you to eat the majority of your food from those type of products.....
Plus, ancient people would have had to grind it up for themselves, soak it and do other preparation to make it edible, so much work went into the process of making it edible.............unlike today.
And I have had many Doctors tell me that these things we eat today are no where near what the ancient grains were. The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures.
This is largely false for paleolithic people that inhabited the higher latitudes.
Menus varied so much that it's impossible to pinpoint a specific 'paleo' diet. Paleoithic people in the topics and mid latitudes would have eaten more carbohydrate. Paleo isn't synonymous for 'low-carb'.
But that doesn't change the fact that they were not agricultural. Those are Neolithic peoples. Grains and pulses consumed by paleolithic peoples were still different than today.0 -
I agree, to a point. I would say one could use one approach to lose weight as long as they adopt a healthy approach to maintenance. That's what really matters. One obviously can't go back to 3k days (unless they burn a ton) and expect to maintain. But one could lose via low carb, and take their loss, say 5 LBS below goal, then switch to something healthy and at maintenance calories, gain a few pounds of water weight after adding some carbs, and MAINTAIN.The question is if you can put up with this diet for the rest of your life?
Studies suggest that you won't be able to and regain any lost weight and more within five years.
But then why not just start out with the "something healthy" part to lose the weight in the first place. Then you don't have to relearn how to to maintain eating totally different foods.0 -
Thank you QuietBloom and zerryz
There are some interesting studies going on with Ketogenic diets and it's affect on advanced tumors. Who knows our experience at Mayo may help someone in the future.0 -
Agreed, but that's not what was said. I lost weight eating healthy. And have maintained "eating healthy". But often, on here, when someone says they are going to do X (X being anything other than IIFYM) they are told the minute they stop doing X they will gain all the weight back, and are asked if they can do X for the rest of their lives. As evidenced by the post to which I was replying. If someone wants to give up something to help create the deficit (sugar, beer, whatever) they will not magically gain all their weight back when they reintroduce it. They will gain their weight back if they eat at a surplus. Just as the IIFYM crowd will.
I agree, to a point. I would say one could use one approach to lose weight as long as they adopt a healthy approach to maintenance. That's what really matters. One obviously can't go back to 3k days (unless they burn a ton) and expect to maintain. But one could lose via low carb, and take their loss, say 5 LBS below goal, then switch to something healthy and at maintenance calories, gain a few pounds of water weight after adding some carbs, and MAINTAIN.The question is if you can put up with this diet for the rest of your life?
Studies suggest that you won't be able to and regain any lost weight and more within five years.
But then why not just start out with the "something healthy" part to lose the weight in the first place. Then you don't have to relearn how to to maintain eating totally different foods.0 -
The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures. Do you really believe that last sentence? I can show you livestock and wildlife that not only survive but thrive eating modern cereal grains. Whole grain foodstuffs are very nutritious and certainly can be safely consumed by humans. I believe your information sources are selling a concept that is not supportable by science.
Yes, I do. Cows nor chickens are thriving eat grains they were never intended to eat. They are toxic to them and it is passed on to us through their meat, milk and the eggs.
Feeding livestock grains is not for their health. It is merely to fatten them up faster to send to the slaughter in the factory farming system.
[/quote]
LIvestock wasn't meant to eat grains? What is grass? And who exactly intended anything?0 -
Here's the site: http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
I have my own views, which, for now, I'll keep to myself.
I don't care if you think low carb or Paleo is a good diet plan.
I don't care if you think eating like a caveman is stupid.
I don't care if you think sugar is the angel of God, or Satans right hand of doom.
What I am asking here is, is this research legit and is there merit to this website?
Be open minded. I want a civil and balanced discussion, not a bunch of opinions.
Thanks.
I few cravats here before I say anything: I have non-celiac gluten intolerance, and Hashimoto's disease(both autoimmune). I've also do extensive reading and research done by medical teams and doctors on these two diseases as well as autoimmune diseases in general. My mother and my children have gluten issues as well as various others thrown in for 'fun'.
I say all of that, because in my opinion NOW, after so many diagnosis and reading, that WHAT we eat has a HIGH relation to how healthy we actually are. I'll try to keep this short, but there are many reasons that this particular diet can help those like myself, to feel better as it usually eliminates the high inflammatory foods. (grains, dairy, legumes, processed anything).
I can attest that in many ways, those foods that are taken away in an average paleo diet, if I eat them, I'm in pain, hurting and usually hugging a toilet or my bed for a few days. Something I can't afford with 2 children (toddlers).
So in wrap up...( I can link a few of the things I've read, if need be) for my family, Paleo works where as many others haven't. Why? Because we've tried, and this way of eating shows that we are healthier, both in how we feel and in our blood work.
:-)0 -
Grass isn't grain.
Technically it's the seed of the grass.0 -
The truth is that we don't really know that much about what our ancestors really ate.....other than to say it varied a lot.
Depending on climate and where they lived , they ate whatever it took to survive,0 -
The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures. Do you really believe that last sentence? I can show you livestock and wildlife that not only survive but thrive eating modern cereal grains. Whole grain foodstuffs are very nutritious and certainly can be safely consumed by humans. I believe your information sources are selling a concept that is not supportable by science.
Yes, I do. Cows nor chickens are thriving eat grains they were never intended to eat. They are toxic to them and it is passed on to us through their meat, milk and the eggs.
Feeding livestock grains is not for their health. It is merely to fatten them up faster to send to the slaughter in the factory farming system.
LIvestock wasn't meant to eat grains? What is grass? And who exactly intended anything?
[/quote]
Ruminant animals aren't meant to eat grains. They are herbivores which thrive off grass so they can partially chew, a cud is formed, it starts to ferment, then is regurgitated to be further broken down and swallowed again.
You know nothing about ruminants such as cows, sheep, goats, etc????
And chickens are NOT vegetarians, despite most factory farms and feed lots filling them full of soy and corn.0 -
Cows nor chickens are thriving eat grains they were never intended to eat. They are toxic to them and it is passed on to us through their meat, milk and the eggs.
That's complete rubbish. Both bovines and poultry type birds eat grains when living in the wild - by choice.0 -
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You have to avoid certain foods due to a genetic abnormality, that doesn't make the paleo diet ideal for the average person without that specific, relatively rare condition. Also, since your condition is genetic in nature, it doesn't prove at all that what you eat affects your health. If you could prove that eating a specific diet affected your health without those conditions, that's a whole different argument, but using your genetic condition as evidence doesn't work. In your case, it's your health that affects your diet, not your diet affecting your health.Here's the site: http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
I have my own views, which, for now, I'll keep to myself.
I don't care if you think low carb or Paleo is a good diet plan.
I don't care if you think eating like a caveman is stupid.
I don't care if you think sugar is the angel of God, or Satans right hand of doom.
What I am asking here is, is this research legit and is there merit to this website?
Be open minded. I want a civil and balanced discussion, not a bunch of opinions.
Thanks.
I few cravats here before I say anything: I have non-celiac gluten intolerance, and Hashimoto's disease(both autoimmune). I've also do extensive reading and research done by medical teams and doctors on these two diseases as well as autoimmune diseases in general. My mother and my children have gluten issues as well as various others thrown in for 'fun'.
I say all of that, because in my opinion NOW, after so many diagnosis and reading, that WHAT we eat has a HIGH relation to how healthy we actually are. I'll try to keep this short, but there are many reasons that this particular diet can help those like myself, to feel better as it usually eliminates the high inflammatory foods. (grains, dairy, legumes, processed anything).
I can attest that in many ways, those foods that are taken away in an average paleo diet, if I eat them, I'm in pain, hurting and usually hugging a toilet or my bed for a few days. Something I can't afford with 2 children (toddlers).
So in wrap up...( I can link a few of the things I've read, if need be) for my family, Paleo works where as many others haven't. Why? Because we've tried, and this way of eating shows that we are healthier, both in how we feel and in our blood work.
:-)0 -
Jerry,
Oh for goodness sake. I just don't know what to say to this.
Well, shoot, opinions are pretty darned important because they are often based on personal knowledge or other research on the same subject.here is what I will say….they lost weight because they used paleo, low carb, whatever to create a calorie deficit…
Paloe, IF, Low Carb, etc are not magical ways to lose weight..they are just a tool to create a calorie deficit to lose weight..
you can eat high carb/non paleo, and lose weight…
calories in vs calories out...
This isn't about losing weight.
It's not? The link you posted referenced losing weight..
Imho paleontology and low carb is bunk
No. It's about optimum health and proper nutrition.
i don't see how low carb or paleo promote optimum health and proper nutrition...
I mostly was asking about the research, not opinions. I don't mean to sound rude. I just wanted very specific information based upon the website and the research it sites.
Nope. Not true. Too many people here on MFP are anti low carb and anti Paleo. I was attempting to not get into that side of it by asking people to just stick to the research. Very few people did, but some did, and helped me gain some knowledge. The problem with people's opinions is that I don't know how true they are. If you say you ate Paleo for 6 months and dropped 12 lbs and 3% body fat. Ok. But, that's a sample of one. It's meaningless. There are too many other factors. In a controlled study, they would look at the diets of a group of people. There would be separate groups, one eating Paleo, one eating normal, and then maybe another eating low fat or something. Then you compare the groups and come up with your findings. As I'm hearing this, there is no conclusive research on this specific topic with controlled groups. But, they may have started some testing on pigs, as I understand it. So, I guess it's too early.
If as an individual, you find that eating a certain way provides benefits over eating other ways, then have at it. But, this thread was really not intended to be about people's bias or opinion, but rather I was specifically asking about the research I cited in my original post. Or, if there's other research that specifies the benefits of low carb or Paleo eating. Apparently, what I am hearing, is this does not exist right now.
Good. Then I made my point. I didn't post here for opinions. From your post count, it looks like you post a bit, but I've never seen you here. I'm here a lot. This isn't a low carb debate. I'm asking specific question of the research, not people's opinion on if low carb works. Is that difficult? I'm trying to stave off all the anti low carb patriots here. This isn't about what anyone thinks or feels. It's about what the research suggests. I'm asking to discuss the research. Not how a bowl of rice makes your belly swell.
You've missed my point. You are adamant you are that opinion on the research in the link that you provided is not part of a good discussion. Why so closed minded?.
I thought it was quite clear he was interested in the scientific research (if any) that has been done and opinions on that. How that leads to being close minded, I admit I'm baffled.
That makes 2 of us. His question was clear as a bell from the opening post. It seems that some have some kind of perceptual handicap in that they have to answer with what they think instead of evidence based on research. That would explain a lot of the nonsense on these boards.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Cows nor chickens are thriving eat grains they were never intended to eat. They are toxic to them and it is passed on to us through their meat, milk and the eggs.
That's complete rubbish. Both bovines and poultry type birds eat grains when living in the wild - by choice.
You are saying the rubbish. Poultry birds may pick up a grain seed or two, but mostly they are going for worms and bugs and such in the wild. That doesn't mean that the mainstay of their diet and nutrition needs to come in the form of grains they are not intended to eat as the main part of their diet.
Ruminants canNOT digest grain and they are NOT meant to eat grain. I posted an article regarding bovines in particular and how they don't and can't digest the grains. They are GRASS eaters, hence the reason they are herbivores.0 -
Are you trying to imply that "herbivore" means "only eats grass?" Because that's absolutely nowhere near truth. Also, cattle are ruminants, meaning they can eat and extract nutrients from ANY plant matter, not just grass. Not a lot of grass in deserts or swamps, but cattle have lived and thrived in those environments for thousands of years.Cows nor chickens are thriving eat grains they were never intended to eat. They are toxic to them and it is passed on to us through their meat, milk and the eggs.
That's complete rubbish. Both bovines and poultry type birds eat grains when living in the wild - by choice.
You are saying the rubbish. Poultry birds may pick up a grain seed or two, but mostly they are going for worms and bugs and such in the wild. That doesn't mean that the mainstay of their diet and nutrition needs to come in the form of grains they are not intended to eat as the main part of their diet.
Ruminants canNOT digest grain and they are NOT meant to eat grain. I posted an article regarding bovines in particular and how they don't and can't digest the grains. They are GRASS eaters, hence the reason they are herbivores.
As for the "article" you cited as evidence that cattle can't digest corn, did you happen to read the disclaimer at the bottom? The one that says it was written by students, that it may or may notbe factually accurate, that it should not be used for citations as evidence, and that it's considered personal correspondence, and not academic literature? It has all the validity of a random forum post.0 -
As are the meats, fruits, vegetables, water, shelters, technology, and humans. Saying we shouldn't eat it because it's different now than it was then is a laughably false argument to make, as that would mean we shouldn't eat any food available, or drink any fluid available, as all of it is different now.
Paleolithic era man actually ate a majority of their calories from grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables. Roughly 50% of their calories were carbs. They actually ate very similarly to today, which is one reason why we still eat that way today.Because even paleolithic people ate some grains and legumes. So completely removing a food group, just because our ancestors thousands of years ago ate less than we do, isn't really a compelling argument for total elimination in modern man.
Of course, eat what you want.
Some grains and legumes is not like today where they try and tell you to eat the majority of your food from those type of products.....
Plus, ancient people would have had to grind it up for themselves, soak it and do other preparation to make it edible, so much work went into the process of making it edible.............unlike today.
And I have had many Doctors tell me that these things we eat today are no where near what the ancient grains were. The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures.
This is largely false for paleolithic people that inhabited the higher latitudes.
Menus varied so much that it's impossible to pinpoint a specific 'paleo' diet. Paleoithic people in the topics and mid latitudes would have eaten more carbohydrate. Paleo isn't synonymous for 'low-carb'.
But that doesn't change the fact that they were not agricultural. Those are Neolithic peoples. Grains and pulses consumed by paleolithic peoples were still different than today.
Using that logic, we should all just starve to death or die of dehydration. Seems legit.0 -
Ruminants canNOT digest grain and they are NOT meant to eat grain.
Why do you keep making ridiculous claims that are so obviously false? If ruminants couldn't digest grain, then grain-fed ruminants would starve to death.
This is really basic stuff you're getting completely wrong.0 -
Ruminants canNOT digest grain and they are NOT meant to eat grain.
Why do you keep making ridiculous claims that are so obviously false? If ruminants couldn't digest grain, then grain-fed ruminants would starve to death.
This is really basic stuff you're getting completely wrong.
You realize that they aren't healthy and many die. That is the reason they have to be injected with antibiotics and such.
You obviously didn't read the article I posted from a University regarding what I am saying.
Feed lots and factory farming are FORCING animals to eat foods they are not really adapted to eat.
Feedlot-raised animals are kept indoors for the majority of the year, and they are given feed formulated to speed their growth to market weight and supply them with essential nutrients, while minimizing costs to operators. Concerns have arisen about the content of these feeds, however, as grain-based diets can produce serious and sometimes fatal digestive tract problems in food animals such as cows, goats, and sheep whose stomachs are best suited to digesting high-cellulose containing plants like grass.
Cows are natural ruminants, which means that they are able to digest the cellulose in grass because of their multi-chambered digestive tracts. Because ruminants' digestive systems are not designed for grain, cattle raised on grain can develop severe health problems, including liver abscesses, bloat, and sudden death syndrome. Studies have shown that the incidence of liver abscesses in cattle decreases significantly as more roughage, such as grass or hay, is added to their diets. F
Because the rumen of grain-fed cows is acidic, while that of grass-fed cows G is neutral due to different chemical processes, cows who are fed corn or soy based diets may be colonized with E.Coli strain O157:H7, a strain of e.coli that has developed to withstand the acidic stomachs of cows raised on grain. Consequently, this strain can withstand one of the human body’s main defenses against pathogens, the high acidity of the stomach, increasing the risk of serious infection in people who consume meat contaminated with acidity-resistant strains.
http://www.sustainabletable.org/260/animal-feed0 -
Obviously you didn't read the article you posted, because it is NOT from a University, as I've already said. From the article:Ruminants canNOT digest grain and they are NOT meant to eat grain.
Why do you keep making ridiculous claims that are so obviously false? If ruminants couldn't digest grain, then grain-fed ruminants would starve to death.
This is really basic stuff you're getting completely wrong.
You realize that they aren't healthy and many die. That is the reason they have to be injected with antibiotics and such.
You obviously didn't read the article I posted from a University regarding what I am saying.
Feed lots and factory farming are FORCING animals to eat foods they are not really adapted to eat.
Note: Eukaryon is published by students at Lake Forest
College, who are solely responsible for its content. The
views expressed in Eukaryon do not necessarily reflect
those of the College. Articles published within Eukaryon
should not be cited in bibliographies. Material contained
herein should be treated as personal communication and
should be cited as such only with the consent of the author.
It's an opinion piece written by a student, with shoddy supportive research. I'm guessing by the way it's written it was probably just a quick persuasive essay written by a student as a class assignment. Certainly not academic research that holds any merit to your argument. Probably does you more damage, as it shows you aren't very thorough when it comes to vetting your research sources.
EDIT - Also, you're aware that cellulose is a major component of most plant matter, and isn't just in grasses, right? I mean, there are a couple hundred species of ruminants, none of them eat only grass.0 -
Obviously you didn't read the article you posted, because it is NOT from a University, as I've already said. From the article:Ruminants canNOT digest grain and they are NOT meant to eat grain.
Why do you keep making ridiculous claims that are so obviously false? If ruminants couldn't digest grain, then grain-fed ruminants would starve to death.
This is really basic stuff you're getting completely wrong.
You realize that they aren't healthy and many die. That is the reason they have to be injected with antibiotics and such.
You obviously didn't read the article I posted from a University regarding what I am saying.
Feed lots and factory farming are FORCING animals to eat foods they are not really adapted to eat.
Note: Eukaryon is published by students at Lake Forest
College, who are solely responsible for its content. The
views expressed in Eukaryon do not necessarily reflect
those of the College. Articles published within Eukaryon
should not be cited in bibliographies. Material contained
herein should be treated as personal communication and
should be cited as such only with the consent of the author.
It's an opinion piece written by a student, with shoddy supportive research. I'm guessing by the way it's written it was probably just a quick persuasive essay written by a student as a class assignment. Certainly not academic research that holds any merit to your argument. Probably does you more damage, as it shows you aren't very thorough when it comes to vetting your research sources.
Obviously the Biology and Environmental studies programs at Lake Forest University take no issues with it and there are plenty of CREDIBLE sources cited to back up the article.
You and the other poster are merely being ignorant to try and incite an argument. Everyone is taught in their elementary school years that cows, sheep, goats, deer, etc are meant to eat grass and forage, not grains.0 -
Now you're making assumptions. The college doesn't endorse that article in any way, and in fact, takes steps to distance themselves from it, as shown by the disclaimer.
Obviously you didn't read the article you posted, because it is NOT from a University, as I've already said. From the article:Ruminants canNOT digest grain and they are NOT meant to eat grain.
Why do you keep making ridiculous claims that are so obviously false? If ruminants couldn't digest grain, then grain-fed ruminants would starve to death.
This is really basic stuff you're getting completely wrong.
You realize that they aren't healthy and many die. That is the reason they have to be injected with antibiotics and such.
You obviously didn't read the article I posted from a University regarding what I am saying.
Feed lots and factory farming are FORCING animals to eat foods they are not really adapted to eat.
Note: Eukaryon is published by students at Lake Forest
College, who are solely responsible for its content. The
views expressed in Eukaryon do not necessarily reflect
those of the College. Articles published within Eukaryon
should not be cited in bibliographies. Material contained
herein should be treated as personal communication and
should be cited as such only with the consent of the author.
It's an opinion piece written by a student, with shoddy supportive research. I'm guessing by the way it's written it was probably just a quick persuasive essay written by a student as a class assignment. Certainly not academic research that holds any merit to your argument. Probably does you more damage, as it shows you aren't very thorough when it comes to vetting your research sources.
Obviously the Biology and Environmental studies programs at Lake Forest University take no issues with it and there are plenty of CREDIBLE sources cited to back up the article.
You and the other poster are merely being ignorant to try and incite an argument. Everyone is taught in their elementary school years that cows, sheep, goats, deer, etc are meant to eat grass and forage, not grains.0 -
You realize that they aren't healthy...
No, sorry, that's not true, either.
You need to make up your mind about what it is you want to claim. There is a huge difference between claiming an animal "can't" digest something (which is precisely what you claimed) and claiming they "shouldn't" digest something (which is something else entirely). Not to mention you are conflating "eating grains" with "feed lot", which are two separate issues entirely.
I suggest taking a little time to organize your thoughts on this into something coherent, and then coming back to further the conversation. Because right now, your statements are bouncing around like a housefly on meth, making it impossible to have a meaningful discussion. Spending a little less time watching documentaries on Netflix, and a little more time actually in the field with the animals would do wonders.
As a frame of reference, I actually raise pastured, organic heritage breed livestock, so if you're going to bring it, you'd better do your homework.
Cheers.0 -
I have concluded that there is no scientific unbiased research studies on this topic. There is quite a bit of very selective research as well as many individuals with a sample of one that find that eating a low carb whole foods diet has helped them with some ailment they may be experiencing
After looking at it about a year and a half ago and revisiting it over that time, I came to the same conclusion. They are not inherently unhealthy but neither shows any metabolic advantage based on available research. There is also a dearth of well constructed research on either diet and most of what there is, is biased right out of the gate.0 -
Obviously you didn't read the article you posted, because it is NOT from a University, as I've already said. From the article:Ruminants canNOT digest grain and they are NOT meant to eat grain.
Why do you keep making ridiculous claims that are so obviously false? If ruminants couldn't digest grain, then grain-fed ruminants would starve to death.
This is really basic stuff you're getting completely wrong.
You realize that they aren't healthy and many die. That is the reason they have to be injected with antibiotics and such.
You obviously didn't read the article I posted from a University regarding what I am saying.
Feed lots and factory farming are FORCING animals to eat foods they are not really adapted to eat.
Note: Eukaryon is published by students at Lake Forest
College, who are solely responsible for its content. The
views expressed in Eukaryon do not necessarily reflect
those of the College. Articles published within Eukaryon
should not be cited in bibliographies. Material contained
herein should be treated as personal communication and
should be cited as such only with the consent of the author.
It's an opinion piece written by a student, with shoddy supportive research. I'm guessing by the way it's written it was probably just a quick persuasive essay written by a student as a class assignment. Certainly not academic research that holds any merit to your argument. Probably does you more damage, as it shows you aren't very thorough when it comes to vetting your research sources.
Obviously the Biology and Environmental studies programs at Lake Forest University take no issues with it and there are plenty of CREDIBLE sources cited to back up the article.
You and the other poster are merely being ignorant to try and incite an argument. Everyone is taught in their elementary school years that cows, sheep, goats, deer, etc are meant to eat grass and forage, not grains.
STHAPPP!! This has nothing to do with the OP and you have apparently lost all ability to know fact from your own internal agenda. Bring some legit science from a credible source.0 -
Um, I wasn't going to reply to your nonsense, but he said in his original post he said he didn't want a bunch of opinions. Go figure, that's exactly what he's getting.
Jerry,
Oh for goodness sake. I just don't know what to say to this.
Well, shoot, opinions are pretty darned important because they are often based on personal knowledge or other research on the same subject.here is what I will say….they lost weight because they used paleo, low carb, whatever to create a calorie deficit…
Paloe, IF, Low Carb, etc are not magical ways to lose weight..they are just a tool to create a calorie deficit to lose weight..
you can eat high carb/non paleo, and lose weight…
calories in vs calories out...
This isn't about losing weight.
It's not? The link you posted referenced losing weight..
Imho paleontology and low carb is bunk
No. It's about optimum health and proper nutrition.
i don't see how low carb or paleo promote optimum health and proper nutrition...
I mostly was asking about the research, not opinions. I don't mean to sound rude. I just wanted very specific information based upon the website and the research it sites.
Nope. Not true. Too many people here on MFP are anti low carb and anti Paleo. I was attempting to not get into that side of it by asking people to just stick to the research. Very few people did, but some did, and helped me gain some knowledge. The problem with people's opinions is that I don't know how true they are. If you say you ate Paleo for 6 months and dropped 12 lbs and 3% body fat. Ok. But, that's a sample of one. It's meaningless. There are too many other factors. In a controlled study, they would look at the diets of a group of people. There would be separate groups, one eating Paleo, one eating normal, and then maybe another eating low fat or something. Then you compare the groups and come up with your findings. As I'm hearing this, there is no conclusive research on this specific topic with controlled groups. But, they may have started some testing on pigs, as I understand it. So, I guess it's too early.
If as an individual, you find that eating a certain way provides benefits over eating other ways, then have at it. But, this thread was really not intended to be about people's bias or opinion, but rather I was specifically asking about the research I cited in my original post. Or, if there's other research that specifies the benefits of low carb or Paleo eating. Apparently, what I am hearing, is this does not exist right now.
Good. Then I made my point. I didn't post here for opinions. From your post count, it looks like you post a bit, but I've never seen you here. I'm here a lot. This isn't a low carb debate. I'm asking specific question of the research, not people's opinion on if low carb works. Is that difficult? I'm trying to stave off all the anti low carb patriots here. This isn't about what anyone thinks or feels. It's about what the research suggests. I'm asking to discuss the research. Not how a bowl of rice makes your belly swell.
You've missed my point. You are adamant you are that opinion on the research in the link that you provided is not part of a good discussion. Why so closed minded?.
I thought it was quite clear he was interested in the scientific research (if any) that has been done and opinions on that. How that leads to being close minded, I admit I'm baffled.
That makes 2 of us. His question was clear as a bell from the opening post. It seems that some have some kind of perceptual handicap in that they have to answer with what they think instead of evidence based on research. That would explain a lot of the nonsense on these boards.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions