We don't know what constitutes a true paleo diet!
Replies
-
I think this is where primal differs from other 'fad diets kaleo, vegan, IIFYM and yes primal and paleo - there all fad diets don't be naive'. With primal we don't force it on others.
Do you really believe this? That all people that follow those lifestyles or diets-not a fad when it's the way you've been for over 20 years-except for primal push them on others, and all people who eat primal never try to tell others to eat this way?
When people on this forum ask about being vegan for health, I let them know that while it's possible to follow a vegan diet for health motivations, it can be tough to adhere to and if they would find it too restrictive, there's lots of ways to get the health benefits in question. The only thing I ask is that people not grill me or make fun of me for why I eat the way I do. I do not try to force others to eat the way I eat.
Or did you say that just to keep an argument going?
By the way, I follow IIFYM and veganism. From what I've learned, as long as I eat no more than 240-400 calories or so of my food from lentils, I can also go ahead and call myself primal, too. How does that fit in your generalizations?0 -
you must have been on the debate team in high schoolabsolutely. the FOOD of today is vastly different from the food of 50 years ago and our bodies haven't had a chance to catch up, thus higher levels of food sensitivities across the board.
it's pretty simple stuff really.
LOL :laugh:
? care to elaborate? because what i said is pretty widely accepted...
widely accepted by who? readers of clean eating blog sites? or of paleo blog sites?
ROTFLMAO :laugh:
you're funny. the things you post on here are funny. don't hate me because i have a sense of humor.
don't forget Brainy, Burro.
0 -
I think this is where primal differs from other 'fad diets kaleo, vegan, IIFYM and yes primal and paleo - there all fad diets don't be naive'. With primal we don't force it on others.
Do you really believe this? That all people that follow those lifestyles or diets-not a fad when it's the way you've been for over 20 years-except for primal push them on others, and all people who eat primal never try to tell others to eat this way?
When people on this forum ask about being vegan for health, I let them know that while it's possible to follow a vegan diet for health motivations, it can be tough to adhere to and if they would find it too restrictive, there's lots of ways to get the health benefits in question. The only thing I ask is that people not grill me or make fun of me for why I eat the way I do. I do not try to force others to eat the way I eat.
Or did you say that just to keep an argument going?
By the way, I follow IIFYM and veganism. From what I've learned, as long as I eat no more than 240-400 calories or so of my food from lentils, I can also go ahead and call myself primal, too. How does that fit in your generalizations?
I cannot comprehend how someone does not eat meat? That's restriction to the extreme.0 -
I think this is where primal differs from other 'fad diets kaleo, vegan, IIFYM and yes primal and paleo - there all fad diets don't be naive'. With primal we don't force it on others.
Do you really believe this? That all people that follow those lifestyles or diets-not a fad when it's the way you've been for over 20 years-except for primal push them on others, and all people who eat primal never try to tell others to eat this way?
When people on this forum ask about being vegan for health, I let them know that while it's possible to follow a vegan diet for health motivations, it can be tough to adhere to and if they would find it too restrictive, there's lots of ways to get the health benefits in question. The only thing I ask is that people not grill me or make fun of me for why I eat the way I do. I do not try to force others to eat the way I eat.
Or did you say that just to keep an argument going?
By the way, I follow IIFYM and veganism. From what I've learned, as long as I eat no more than 240-400 calories or so of my food from lentils, I can also go ahead and call myself primal, too. How does that fit in your generalizations?
I cannot comprehend how someone does not eat meat? That's restriction to the extreme.
:noway:0 -
This is exactly my understanding of Neandermagon's point. This is a great diet for people with sensitivities.
It has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with what humans evolved to eat.
If the proponents of the diet framed it in a way that highlighted the benefits of the diet (nutritionally balanced way to live with food sensitivities) and didn't try to apply it to everybody else "Human evolved to eat certain things," the diet would be great and very credible.
But, the argument behind the food sensitivities is due to evolution -- that so many people are having these sensitivities now is because the diet has changed significantly -- whether in consumption of amount of grain products, content of such products (how many vegetables, fruits and grains have been engineered and aren't as nutritious as their ancestral or non-modified version), differences in omega 3-6 balance seen in grain-fed beef, all the chemicals and preservatives in processed foods, etc. Now, if you don't think that's true, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
But just at the top of this page (eta - page 10), you thanked someone for posting that Paleo diet had nothing to do with evolutionary science... now you are claiming that it does?
I'm confused!0 -
I think this is where primal differs from other 'fad diets kaleo, vegan, IIFYM and yes primal and paleo - there all fad diets don't be naive'. With primal we don't force it on others.
Do you really believe this? That all people that follow those lifestyles or diets-not a fad when it's the way you've been for over 20 years-except for primal push them on others, and all people who eat primal never try to tell others to eat this way?
When people on this forum ask about being vegan for health, I let them know that while it's possible to follow a vegan diet for health motivations, it can be tough to adhere to and if they would find it too restrictive, there's lots of ways to get the health benefits in question. The only thing I ask is that people not grill me or make fun of me for why I eat the way I do. I do not try to force others to eat the way I eat.
Or did you say that just to keep an argument going?
By the way, I follow IIFYM and veganism. From what I've learned, as long as I eat no more than 240-400 calories or so of my food from lentils, I can also go ahead and call myself primal, too. How does that fit in your generalizations?
Do I believe the statement - no I don't actually I think people from each of the diets are bias to the same extent (it's just human nature)
It was my subtle statement of hypocrisy!
Although I will be honest I have not seen anyone from a primal diet pushing it on anyone on this forum.
It just seems that the diet is vilified to and extreme level.0 -
This is exactly my understanding of Neandermagon's point. This is a great diet for people with sensitivities.
It has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with what humans evolved to eat.
If the proponents of the diet framed it in a way that highlighted the benefits of the diet (nutritionally balanced way to live with food sensitivities) and didn't try to apply it to everybody else "Human evolved to eat certain things," the diet would be great and very credible.
But, the argument behind the food sensitivities is due to evolution -- that so many people are having these sensitivities now is because the diet has changed significantly -- whether in consumption of amount of grain products, content of such products (how many vegetables, fruits and grains have been engineered and aren't as nutritious as their ancestral or non-modified version), differences in omega 3-6 balance seen in grain-fed beef, all the chemicals and preservatives in processed foods, etc. Now, if you don't think that's true, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
But just at the top of this page (eta - page 10), you thanked someone for posting that Paleo diet had nothing to do with evolutionary science... now you are claiming that it does?
I'm confused!
um... it's not difficult but I'll try to spell it out.
the only evolutionary science that's applicable is the fact that our bodies HAVE NOT evolved to be able to process the genetic modifications of things like wheat grains that has taken place in the last 50 years.
make sense?0 -
I think this is where primal differs from other 'fad diets kaleo, vegan, IIFYM and yes primal and paleo - there all fad diets don't be naive'. With primal we don't force it on others.
Do you really believe this? That all people that follow those lifestyles or diets-not a fad when it's the way you've been for over 20 years-except for primal push them on others, and all people who eat primal never try to tell others to eat this way?
When people on this forum ask about being vegan for health, I let them know that while it's possible to follow a vegan diet for health motivations, it can be tough to adhere to and if they would find it too restrictive, there's lots of ways to get the health benefits in question. The only thing I ask is that people not grill me or make fun of me for why I eat the way I do. I do not try to force others to eat the way I eat.
Or did you say that just to keep an argument going?
By the way, I follow IIFYM and veganism. From what I've learned, as long as I eat no more than 240-400 calories or so of my food from lentils, I can also go ahead and call myself primal, too. How does that fit in your generalizations?
I cannot comprehend how someone does not eat meat? That's restriction to the extreme.
:noway:
Sorry did I say meat - I meant grain????0 -
I think this is where primal differs from other 'fad diets kaleo, vegan, IIFYM and yes primal and paleo - there all fad diets don't be naive'. With primal we don't force it on others.
Do you really believe this? That all people that follow those lifestyles or diets-not a fad when it's the way you've been for over 20 years-except for primal push them on others, and all people who eat primal never try to tell others to eat this way?
When people on this forum ask about being vegan for health, I let them know that while it's possible to follow a vegan diet for health motivations, it can be tough to adhere to and if they would find it too restrictive, there's lots of ways to get the health benefits in question. The only thing I ask is that people not grill me or make fun of me for why I eat the way I do. I do not try to force others to eat the way I eat.
Or did you say that just to keep an argument going?
By the way, I follow IIFYM and veganism. From what I've learned, as long as I eat no more than 240-400 calories or so of my food from lentils, I can also go ahead and call myself primal, too. How does that fit in your generalizations?
Flax Milk -- I've appreciated your posts. I find them generally very well composed and respectful.
I can't speak for others here, but in my brief time, I've seen a lot of people attack Primal/Paleo -- far fewer have a reasoned discussion. I personally don't care for vegan-ism myself, but I don't go around attacking it or those that choose to follow it or tell them that there are no scientific basis for its composition. That's the only issue I have with certain people here -- with some, there seems to be some pretty blatant Paleo/Primal bashing, whether in the form of condescending, conclusory statements or just outright hostility. It really does confuse me.0 -
This is exactly my understanding of Neandermagon's point. This is a great diet for people with sensitivities.
It has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with what humans evolved to eat.
If the proponents of the diet framed it in a way that highlighted the benefits of the diet (nutritionally balanced way to live with food sensitivities) and didn't try to apply it to everybody else "Human evolved to eat certain things," the diet would be great and very credible.
But, the argument behind the food sensitivities is due to evolution -- that so many people are having these sensitivities now is because the diet has changed significantly -- whether in consumption of amount of grain products, content of such products (how many vegetables, fruits and grains have been engineered and aren't as nutritious as their ancestral or non-modified version), differences in omega 3-6 balance seen in grain-fed beef, etc. Now, if you don't think that's true, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
absolutely. the FOOD of today is vastly different from the food of 50 years ago and our bodies haven't had a chance to catch up, thus higher levels of food sensitivities across the board.
it's pretty simple stuff really.
That is your assumption. Is there any actual evidence that "our bodies haven't had a chance to catch up", and to what, exactly?
I mean, I could move from the USA to India and after a week or so, my body would be caught up to their food stuff.0 -
I think this is where primal differs from other 'fad diets kaleo, vegan, IIFYM and yes primal and paleo - there all fad diets don't be naive'. With primal we don't force it on others.
Do you really believe this? That all people that follow those lifestyles or diets-not a fad when it's the way you've been for over 20 years-except for primal push them on others, and all people who eat primal never try to tell others to eat this way?
When people on this forum ask about being vegan for health, I let them know that while it's possible to follow a vegan diet for health motivations, it can be tough to adhere to and if they would find it too restrictive, there's lots of ways to get the health benefits in question. The only thing I ask is that people not grill me or make fun of me for why I eat the way I do. I do not try to force others to eat the way I eat.
Or did you say that just to keep an argument going?
By the way, I follow IIFYM and veganism. From what I've learned, as long as I eat no more than 240-400 calories or so of my food from lentils, I can also go ahead and call myself primal, too. How does that fit in your generalizations?
Do I believe the statement - no I don't actually I think people from each of the diets are bias to the same extent (it's just human nature'
It was my subtle statement of hypocrisy!
Although I will be honest I have not seen anyone from a primal diet pushing it on anyone on this forum.
It just seems that the diet is vilified to and extreme level.
that last part is true. I'm not even paleo and i find myself defending it against the hordes. :laugh:0 -
I cannot comprehend how someone does not eat meat? That's restriction to the extreme.
But that doesn't answer my question.
Not eating meat does not feel like restriction to many vegetarians, in the same way that you say you do not miss the foods you don't eat. Most of the foods I want to eat that I can't are due to medical restrictions on gluten, not the vegan issue. Most foods at this point in time have a vegan substitute; unfortunately, they are often made with wheat gluten. But even so, I don't miss the meat itself. In fact, I have been known to not eat meat substitutes because they remind me too much of actual meat. I prefer the ones that don't really taste like real meat.
Most vegans-not all, I'm sure-will be the first to tell people who think a vegan diet = weight loss that they are wrong. It's extremely easy to overeat as a vegan. To repeat, it would be way worse if I could eat gluten. (And I do miss gluten. A lot.)0 -
This is exactly my understanding of Neandermagon's point. This is a great diet for people with sensitivities.
It has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with what humans evolved to eat.
If the proponents of the diet framed it in a way that highlighted the benefits of the diet (nutritionally balanced way to live with food sensitivities) and didn't try to apply it to everybody else "Human evolved to eat certain things," the diet would be great and very credible.
But, the argument behind the food sensitivities is due to evolution -- that so many people are having these sensitivities now is because the diet has changed significantly -- whether in consumption of amount of grain products, content of such products (how many vegetables, fruits and grains have been engineered and aren't as nutritious as their ancestral or non-modified version), differences in omega 3-6 balance seen in grain-fed beef, etc. Now, if you don't think that's true, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
absolutely. the FOOD of today is vastly different from the food of 50 years ago and our bodies haven't had a chance to catch up, thus higher levels of food sensitivities across the board.
it's pretty simple stuff really.
That is your assumption. Is there any actual evidence that "our bodies haven't had a chance to catch up", and to what, exactly?
I mean, I could move from the USA to India and after a week or so, my body would be caught up to their food stuff.
well first of all it would probably take longer than a week to get used to their water supply.
but genetic modification has created a wheat grain that is hardier than the grain of 50 years ago so that it can withstand pests/pesticides/weather conditions better. yes it's great that it can create more abundant crops, but this hardiness makes it also more difficult to digest. as we saw with milk, it takes generations and generations of adaptation for lactase persistence to exist, and the same will be true with wheat. It will take generations for our bodies to be able to process it correctly and THAT'S why there's been a 400% increase in celiac disease over the last 50 years.0 -
um... it's not difficult but I'll try to spell it out.
the only evolutionary science that's applicable is the fact that our bodies HAVE NOT evolved to be able to process the genetic modifications of things like wheat grains that has taken place in the last 50 years.
make sense?
Except mine. I guess because I'm special.0 -
This is exactly my understanding of Neandermagon's point. This is a great diet for people with sensitivities.
It has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with what humans evolved to eat.
If the proponents of the diet framed it in a way that highlighted the benefits of the diet (nutritionally balanced way to live with food sensitivities) and didn't try to apply it to everybody else "Human evolved to eat certain things," the diet would be great and very credible.
But, the argument behind the food sensitivities is due to evolution -- that so many people are having these sensitivities now is because the diet has changed significantly -- whether in consumption of amount of grain products, content of such products (how many vegetables, fruits and grains have been engineered and aren't as nutritious as their ancestral or non-modified version), differences in omega 3-6 balance seen in grain-fed beef, etc. Now, if you don't think that's true, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
absolutely. the FOOD of today is vastly different from the food of 50 years ago and our bodies haven't had a chance to catch up, thus higher levels of food sensitivities across the board.
it's pretty simple stuff really.
I thought all the intolerances (gluten, lactose, etc.) were more apparent today mostly because the people who have those intolerances are surviving to a breeding age and having children which may/may not have said intolerances (thusly going to the doctor looking for medicine), rather than getting sick and dying at an early age.
Broadly stated, you can eat penicillin when it's present on food. It's why I avoid eating moldy food.0 -
um... it's not difficult but I'll try to spell it out.
the only evolutionary science that's applicable is the fact that our bodies HAVE NOT evolved to be able to process the genetic modifications of things like wheat grains that has taken place in the last 50 years.
make sense?
Except mine. I guess because I'm special.
you think that because you dont have full blown celiac disease, something 1 in 100 people have, that the above is untrue?
yikes.0 -
This is exactly my understanding of Neandermagon's point. This is a great diet for people with sensitivities.
It has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with what humans evolved to eat.
If the proponents of the diet framed it in a way that highlighted the benefits of the diet (nutritionally balanced way to live with food sensitivities) and didn't try to apply it to everybody else "Human evolved to eat certain things," the diet would be great and very credible.
But, the argument behind the food sensitivities is due to evolution -- that so many people are having these sensitivities now is because the diet has changed significantly -- whether in consumption of amount of grain products, content of such products (how many vegetables, fruits and grains have been engineered and aren't as nutritious as their ancestral or non-modified version), differences in omega 3-6 balance seen in grain-fed beef, etc. Now, if you don't think that's true, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
absolutely. the FOOD of today is vastly different from the food of 50 years ago and our bodies haven't had a chance to catch up, thus higher levels of food sensitivities across the board.
it's pretty simple stuff really.
I thought all the intolerances (gluten, lactose, etc.) were more apparent today mostly because the people who have those intolerances are surviving to a breeding age and having children which may/may not have said intolerances (thusly going to the doctor looking for medicine), rather than getting sick and dying at an early age.
Broadly stated, you can eat penicillin when it's present on food. It's why I avoid eating moldy food.
people who were lactose intolerant didn't live to a breeding age in 1950? wut?0 -
This is exactly my understanding of Neandermagon's point. This is a great diet for people with sensitivities.
It has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with what humans evolved to eat.
If the proponents of the diet framed it in a way that highlighted the benefits of the diet (nutritionally balanced way to live with food sensitivities) and didn't try to apply it to everybody else "Human evolved to eat certain things," the diet would be great and very credible.
But, the argument behind the food sensitivities is due to evolution -- that so many people are having these sensitivities now is because the diet has changed significantly -- whether in consumption of amount of grain products, content of such products (how many vegetables, fruits and grains have been engineered and aren't as nutritious as their ancestral or non-modified version), differences in omega 3-6 balance seen in grain-fed beef, etc. Now, if you don't think that's true, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
absolutely. the FOOD of today is vastly different from the food of 50 years ago and our bodies haven't had a chance to catch up, thus higher levels of food sensitivities across the board.
it's pretty simple stuff really.
That is your assumption. Is there any actual evidence that "our bodies haven't had a chance to catch up", and to what, exactly?
I mean, I could move from the USA to India and after a week or so, my body would be caught up to their food stuff.
well first of all it would probably take longer than a week to get used to their water supply.
but genetic modification has created a wheat grain that is hardier than the grain of 50 years ago so that it can withstand pests/pesticides/weather conditions better. yes it's great that it can create more abundant crops, but this hardiness makes it also more difficult to digest. as we saw with milk, it takes generations and generations of adaptation for lactase persistence to exist, and the same will be true with wheat. It will take generations for our bodies to be able to process it correctly and THAT'S why there's been a 400% increase in celiac disease over the last 50 years.
i think you're ready for open mic nite at The Chuckle Hut with this material.
0 -
This is exactly my understanding of Neandermagon's point. This is a great diet for people with sensitivities.
It has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with what humans evolved to eat.
If the proponents of the diet framed it in a way that highlighted the benefits of the diet (nutritionally balanced way to live with food sensitivities) and didn't try to apply it to everybody else "Human evolved to eat certain things," the diet would be great and very credible.
But, the argument behind the food sensitivities is due to evolution -- that so many people are having these sensitivities now is because the diet has changed significantly -- whether in consumption of amount of grain products, content of such products (how many vegetables, fruits and grains have been engineered and aren't as nutritious as their ancestral or non-modified version), differences in omega 3-6 balance seen in grain-fed beef, all the chemicals and preservatives in processed foods, etc. Now, if you don't think that's true, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
But just at the top of this page (eta - page 10), you thanked someone for posting that Paleo diet had nothing to do with evolutionary science... now you are claiming that it does?
I'm confused!
Of course, it has something to do with it, at least in its theory -- i.e. food sensitivities have dramatically increased due to changes in the modern diet, so eliminating/reducing some of those new things in your diet will result in better nutritional health (especially for those with those sensitivities). The idea is in part that such a diet better reflects what ancestors ate. How far that goes, is debatable. The tie to ancestral diet is not the crux of the argument/rationale.
As far as I know, in depth paleo-anthrological studies were not done, and wouldn't really be terribly relevant anyway. The whole Paleo label is more a theory (in non-scientific terms) to (1) describe this process/idea they're seeing between the modern diet/nutrition, inflammation, certain food sensitivities and disease and (2) as a marketing tool. It's not supposed to be strictly literal.0 -
There's this thing called evolution. It's pretty powerful. Just like how we somehow "magically" adapted to tolerating lactose into adulthood. Or how we domesticated grains and beans and whatnot for food. And in time we will probably function better off of processed garbage than what grows from the ground.
If you really want to live "paleo" then stop going to the grocery store and restaurants and hunt and forage for your own food.0 -
This is exactly my understanding of Neandermagon's point. This is a great diet for people with sensitivities.
It has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with what humans evolved to eat.
If the proponents of the diet framed it in a way that highlighted the benefits of the diet (nutritionally balanced way to live with food sensitivities) and didn't try to apply it to everybody else "Human evolved to eat certain things," the diet would be great and very credible.
But, the argument behind the food sensitivities is due to evolution -- that so many people are having these sensitivities now is because the diet has changed significantly -- whether in consumption of amount of grain products, content of such products (how many vegetables, fruits and grains have been engineered and aren't as nutritious as their ancestral or non-modified version), differences in omega 3-6 balance seen in grain-fed beef, etc. Now, if you don't think that's true, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
absolutely. the FOOD of today is vastly different from the food of 50 years ago and our bodies haven't had a chance to catch up, thus higher levels of food sensitivities across the board.
it's pretty simple stuff really.
That is your assumption. Is there any actual evidence that "our bodies haven't had a chance to catch up", and to what, exactly?
I mean, I could move from the USA to India and after a week or so, my body would be caught up to their food stuff.
well first of all it would probably take longer than a week to get used to their water supply.
but genetic modification has created a wheat grain that is hardier than the grain of 50 years ago so that it can withstand pests/pesticides/weather conditions better. yes it's great that it can create more abundant crops, but this hardiness makes it also more difficult to digest. as we saw with milk, it takes generations and generations of adaptation for lactase persistence to exist, and the same will be true with wheat. It will take generations for our bodies to be able to process it correctly and THAT'S why there's been a 400% increase in celiac disease over the last 50 years.
i think you're ready for open mic nite at The Chuckle Hut with this material.
care to elaborate or are you just going to continue to troll?0 -
um... it's not difficult but I'll try to spell it out.
the only evolutionary science that's applicable is the fact that our bodies HAVE NOT evolved to be able to process the genetic modifications of things like wheat grains that has taken place in the last 50 years.
make sense?
Except mine. I guess because I'm special.
you think that because you dont have full blown celiac disease, something 1 in 100 people have, that the above is untrue?
yikes.
Nope. You said that.
You also said "the fact that our bodies HAVE NOT evolved to be able to process the genetic modifications of things like wheat grains that has taken place in the last 50 years"
So according to you, I cheated evolution.0 -
I thought all the intolerances (gluten, lactose, etc.) were more apparent today mostly because the people who have those intolerances are surviving to a breeding age and having children which may/may not have said intolerances (thusly going to the doctor looking for medicine), rather than getting sick and dying at an early age.
Broadly stated, you can eat penicillin when it's present on food. It's why I avoid eating moldy food.
That is an alternate theory. However, unless you have a severe allergic reaction that would kill you from ingesting them, generally such people can just avoid them in the future and live to breeding age.
As you will find with most folks that enjoy Paleo/Primal, they weren't near death when they switched over, but were pleasantly surprised by how much better they felt eating that way, likely indicating a lesser sensitivity to something that was creating sub-optimal performance/feeling. When they went Paleo/Primal, they felt much better and for some, had some issues resolve -- whether digestive, inflammation, auto-immune, etc. But they could have survived in such discomfort -- it was just wasn't optimal (or less optimal than they feel with Paleo/Primal).0 -
um... it's not difficult but I'll try to spell it out.
the only evolutionary science that's applicable is the fact that our bodies HAVE NOT evolved to be able to process the genetic modifications of things like wheat grains that has taken place in the last 50 years.
make sense?
Except mine. I guess because I'm special.
you think that because you dont have full blown celiac disease, something 1 in 100 people have, that the above is untrue?
yikes.
Nope. You said that.
You also said "the fact that our bodies HAVE NOT evolved to be able to process the genetic modifications of things like wheat grains that has taken place in the last 50 years"
So according to you, I cheated evolution.
how do you know? have you tried going gluten free? again I ask you what frame of reference do you have? I'll ask this all day until you answer it.
do you have any credibility when it comes to this topic? do you know how your body would respond without gluten?
how do you know you cheated evolution?0 -
But, to say to that there is no scientific basis for its nutritional science or that no one should try it, that's just incorrect.
it's perfectly correct to say that because it's true. It's based on someone's feelings about food- not reality or science.
it's the Christianity of the food world. Seriously.
And yes- I have gone paleo/paleo-ish- I tend to still eat a whole foods based diet- supplemented with bacon, coffee ice cream and oreos'. Because all of those things are delicious. I don't call it anything but this is what I eat. It's not clean- it's not paleo- it's not "whole foods" it's not organic- it's just what I eat.
Also- you said bacon was calorie dense- do you even lift bro?
bacon is a joke in the "calorie" world.
6 slices is something like 200 calories- compared to everything else it's a joke. it's delicious and tasty.
How is that true? Are there not studies out there on the benefits/detriment of omega-3 fatty acids vs. omega-6? How about the effect of grains and high glycemic carbs on insulin levels and how that impacts insulin resistance, pre-diabetes, diabetes, weight loss, etc.? How about how certain substances (gluten, lactose, etc.) causing or contributing to certain inflammatory responses or or leaky gut? How about the effect of lectins? No, no science at all. Totally made up. Yeah, okay.
What about all that science?
I MIGHT smash my thumb if I use a hammer to put a nail in my tree house....
there for ALL hammers are bad and bad for you and you should never eat them and now make your whole life function without a hammer.
that's what all this food scaring monger sounds like. You can prove anything if you look hard enough but we have been functioning with grains in our diet for years.
Also- carbs/insulin required for muscle growth... not a bad thing. Don't demonize something just because it happens to have a negative impact in a small population of the people who consume it. That's just ridiculous.
Carpenters have been using hammers for years and they are fine. Not everyone needs to live without a hammer just because someone smashed their finger once.
And I know there is a Jesus/Christian/paleo joke in there some where- go on- run with it!! someone!!!0 -
True gluten intorlerance effects 3% of the 7.5 billion people on this planet. Hardly an epidemic, especially considering that a good percentage of those effected have symptoms that are only as serious as lets say...gas.
Take all the minor symptoms that some intolerant people suffer, truely bad reactions to gluten are a small percent of the 3%...making it less of an issue. More people are allergic to grass than that, we better kill all the grass. Astro-turf for everyone!0 -
Thank you for the responses that came in while I was responding.
I can actually relate quite a bit to feeling like you have to defend your diet. I've realized over the years that I don't care what the science says about my diet; I eat the way I do because it suits me, not for any particular health benefit. I'll say that it makes me not very invested in what the science says about other diets so long as they are not extremely harmful. I'd still be vegan if someone could prove to me that I will live a shorter life because of it. Because it suits me. As far as I know, I only get this one life, so I want to live it in the way that means something to me, not get every quantifiable minute out of it that I can.
So I have to say I don't have the personal connections that others do to the name of Paleo/Primal-the only anthropology class I've ever taken had me literally waking up at night in a sweat with the names of things like Ostrolopithicus, Zinjanthropus! (spelling is wrong, I'm sure) running frantically through my brain the night before tests. Not my forte.
I guess I'm trying to say is that I don't have anything against the Paleo/Primal diets. I'd have the same debate/arguments in the previous thread again, but I would have those exact same points on *any* diet, so it's not a Paleocentric point of contention for me. (It's not even the 80/20, but that lines need to be drawn somewhere, because things do have meaning, especially if people are making claims about something.) But to clarify, I have nothing against people who eat paleo or primal. I meant it when I said that if not for the fact that I physically cannot exclude legumes from my diet or my health would suffer terribly, I may have tried a vegan version of Paleo. I actually researched it for awhile to see if it was doable.0 -
This is exactly my understanding of Neandermagon's point. This is a great diet for people with sensitivities.
It has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with what humans evolved to eat.
If the proponents of the diet framed it in a way that highlighted the benefits of the diet (nutritionally balanced way to live with food sensitivities) and didn't try to apply it to everybody else "Human evolved to eat certain things," the diet would be great and very credible.
But, the argument behind the food sensitivities is due to evolution -- that so many people are having these sensitivities now is because the diet has changed significantly -- whether in consumption of amount of grain products, content of such products (how many vegetables, fruits and grains have been engineered and aren't as nutritious as their ancestral or non-modified version), differences in omega 3-6 balance seen in grain-fed beef, etc. Now, if you don't think that's true, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
absolutely. the FOOD of today is vastly different from the food of 50 years ago and our bodies haven't had a chance to catch up, thus higher levels of food sensitivities across the board.
it's pretty simple stuff really.
That is your assumption. Is there any actual evidence that "our bodies haven't had a chance to catch up", and to what, exactly?
I mean, I could move from the USA to India and after a week or so, my body would be caught up to their food stuff.
well first of all it would probably take longer than a week to get used to their water supply.
but genetic modification has created a wheat grain that is hardier than the grain of 50 years ago so that it can withstand pests/pesticides/weather conditions better. yes it's great that it can create more abundant crops, but this hardiness makes it also more difficult to digest. as we saw with milk, it takes generations and generations of adaptation for lactase persistence to exist, and the same will be true with wheat. It will take generations for our bodies to be able to process it correctly and THAT'S why there's been a 400% increase in celiac disease over the last 50 years.
i think you're ready for open mic nite at The Chuckle Hut with this material.
care to elaborate or are you just going to continue to troll?
you're really funny!
0 -
This is exactly my understanding of Neandermagon's point. This is a great diet for people with sensitivities.
It has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with what humans evolved to eat.
If the proponents of the diet framed it in a way that highlighted the benefits of the diet (nutritionally balanced way to live with food sensitivities) and didn't try to apply it to everybody else "Human evolved to eat certain things," the diet would be great and very credible.
But, the argument behind the food sensitivities is due to evolution -- that so many people are having these sensitivities now is because the diet has changed significantly -- whether in consumption of amount of grain products, content of such products (how many vegetables, fruits and grains have been engineered and aren't as nutritious as their ancestral or non-modified version), differences in omega 3-6 balance seen in grain-fed beef, etc. Now, if you don't think that's true, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
absolutely. the FOOD of today is vastly different from the food of 50 years ago and our bodies haven't had a chance to catch up, thus higher levels of food sensitivities across the board.
it's pretty simple stuff really.
LMAO
0 -
How is that true? Are there not studies out there on the benefits/detriment of omega-3 fatty acids vs. omega-6? How about the effect of grains and high glycemic carbs on insulin levels and how that impacts insulin resistance, pre-diabetes, diabetes, weight loss, etc.? How about how certain substances (gluten, lactose, etc.) causing or contributing to certain inflammatory responses or or leaky gut? How about the effect of lectins? No, no science at all. Totally made up. Yeah, okay.
What about all that science?
I MIGHT smash my thumb if I use a hammer to put a nail in my tree house....
there for ALL hammers are bad and bad for you and you should never eat them and now make your whole life function without a hammer.
that's what all this food scaring monger sounds like. You can prove anything if you look hard enough but we have been functioning with grains in our diet for years.
Also- carbs/insulin required for muscle growth... not a bad thing. Don't demonize something just because it happens to have a negative impact in a small population of the people who consume it. That's just ridiculous.
Carpenters have been using hammers for years and they are fine. Not everyone needs to live without a hammer just because someone smashed their finger once.
And I know there is a Jesus/Christian/paleo joke in there some where- go on- run with it!! someone!!!
I'm not demonizing anything or trying to advocate a one-size-fits-all approach. Merely pointing out the various reasons people seek out and/or enjoy Paleo/Primal. Some may find that grains don't bother them, so they add them back in to some degree. Some may do the same with dairy or lectins. And go off Primal/Paleo as a result or stay within the whole 80/20 idea of Primal. Others may decide to be strict forever because that's what works for them and they're not interested in pinpointing the exact issue that affects them -- or they tried and found they had issues with them all. Who knows? Who cares? It's their personal choice. But there are reasons why these type of components and food have been identified. And it's not fear mongering.
And, personally, I've seen no such fear mongering or self-righteousness or any other pushing from anyone that's pro-Paleo/Primal on this site. Granted, I've only been active for a short amount of time, but all that bad behavior has been decidedly with the Paleo/Primal bashers. Not the Paleo/Primal people.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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