We don't know what constitutes a true paleo diet!
Replies
-
Burro and AKC are why we can't have nice things on these forums.
Instead of having a conversation they'd rather troll and flame and attempt to get a thread shut down.
Grow up.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!
Sure, but that's only a small slice of the whole. What about others that have things like PCOS, Hashi's, other auto-immune disorders that may be triggered by gluten (research not definitive, but one of the suspected culprits)?
And such people are seeking to eliminate from the earth. They're just choosing not to eat it. Just like those that are allergic to grass probably stay off of it.0 -
Burro and AKC are why we can't have nice things on these forums.
Instead of having a conversation they'd rather troll and flame and attempt to get a thread shut down.
Grow up.
I just get a kick in the pants when an opinion is made off to be fact, it is quite funny0 -
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.
1. The "modifications" done to wheat were not "genetic modifications" in the sense of GMOs, it was simply done with breeding. In fact, from wiki " As of 2013, no GM wheat is grown commercially, but many field tests have been conducted."
2. Where is the evidence that it makes it harder to digest? And don't say celiacs, as that is apparently your conclusion. Increased detection/reporting could be the "culprit" there. To wit: "As a result, celiac disease has long been underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed. As doctors become more aware of the many varied symptoms of the disease and reliable blood tests become more available, diagnosis rates are increasing." (http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/celiac/)
3. If you suspect you have celiacs, why not go get a blood test and actually find out?0 -
Burro and AKC are why we can't have nice things on these forums.
Instead of having a conversation they'd rather troll and flame and attempt to get a thread shut down.
Grow up.
I just get a kick in the pants when an opinion is made off to be fact, it is quite funny
So show me how I'm misguided instead of trolling, and I'd be glad to change my opinion.
see how that works?0 -
Burro and AKC are why we can't have nice things on these forums.
Instead of having a conversation they'd rather troll and flame and attempt to get a thread shut down.
Grow up.
I just get a kick in the pants when an opinion is made off to be fact, it is quite funny
There are plenty of facts behind the conclusions supporting the Paleo/Primal diet. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't negate the existence of the underlying facts.
And if we're going to get all semantic-y, all facts are opinions as they're filtered through human perception. But, that's an inane argument that fails to see the forest for the trees too.0 -
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.
1. The "modifications" done to wheat were not "genetic modifications" in the sense of GMOs, it was simply done with breeding. In fact, from wiki " As of 2013, no GM wheat is grown commercially, but many field tests have been conducted."
2. Where is the evidence that it makes it harder to digest? And don't say celiacs, as that is apparently your conclusion. Increased detection/reporting could be the "culprit" there. To wit: "As a result, celiac disease has long been underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed. As doctors become more aware of the many varied symptoms of the disease and reliable blood tests become more available, diagnosis rates are increasing." (http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/celiac/)
3. If you suspect you have celiacs, why not go get a blood test and actually find out?
1) i never said GMO
2) I have acknowledged in this thread that detection is part of the 400% increase
3) I don't have celiacs, though blood tests are also unreliable. The best thing to do is to cut out gluten and try it. If you experience no difference, then go ahead and keep eating it. If you feel better... well... then the choice is yours to make on how to proceed. Personally I've tried to cut down my gluten intake, but I'm not strict about it.0 -
Burro and AKC are why we can't have nice things on these forums.
Instead of having a conversation they'd rather troll and flame and attempt to get a thread shut down.
Grow up.
I just get a kick in the pants when an opinion is made off to be fact, it is quite funny
So show me how I'm misguided instead of trolling, and I'd be glad to change my opinion.
see how that works?
I have done the research and talked with dieticians but how about you back up your opinion rather they staking facts as opinions such as using evolution as as a basis for an argument.0 -
physics is the science of everything.
chemistry is a subset of physics.
the fact that you don't recognize this fundamental truth makes everything you say suspect.
Yes, I understand the fundamentals of physics, but I don't conflate every other science as being the same as physics, regardless of the underlying principles, for the sake of common discourse. Geezus H Krist. It's hard to believe that some of you are real people with such ridiculous arguments.
Um. Yeah. Physics describes the physical world at both it's macro and micro levels, including atoms. Chemistry examines how these atoms make up elements and how these elements interact. Biology explores what living organisms, formed of these basic chemical structures, do. When I minored in evolutionary biology as an undergraduate, I had to take chemistry and biochemistry and understand how this applied to DNA (and RNA and proteins) and then how all of this translated to alleles that were present in an environment/physical appearance/behavior and how selection impacted all of this. When I studied social psychology, I had to understand how this all applied to brain/nerve functions because that explains how voluntary and involuntary learning happens.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.
OK, so the paleolithic era is now anything over 50 years ago. Got it. Further, the paleo diet is based on a "theory" in the sense of a wild *kitten*-guess, not scientific evidence. Got it.
Thanks for clearing that up!0 -
Burro and AKC are why we can't have nice things on these forums.
Instead of having a conversation they'd rather troll and flame and attempt to get a thread shut down.
Grow up.
I just get a kick in the pants when an opinion is made off to be fact, it is quite funny
So show me how I'm misguided instead of trolling, and I'd be glad to change my opinion.
see how that works?
your opinions are the ones in conflict with established scientific fact and yet you expect us to bear the burden of proof to convince you that you're mistaken... :laugh:
0 -
Burro and AKC are why we can't have nice things on these forums.
Instead of having a conversation they'd rather troll and flame and attempt to get a thread shut down.
Grow up.
I just get a kick in the pants when an opinion is made off to be fact, it is quite funny
There are plenty of facts behind the conclusions supporting the Paleo/Primal diet. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't negate the existence of the underlying facts.
And if we're going to get all semantic-y, all facts are opinions as they're filtered through human perception. But, that's an inane argument that fails to see the forest for the trees too.0 -
Burro and AKC are why we can't have nice things on these forums.
Instead of having a conversation they'd rather troll and flame and attempt to get a thread shut down.
Grow up.
I just get a kick in the pants when an opinion is made off to be fact, it is quite funny
So show me how I'm misguided instead of trolling, and I'd be glad to change my opinion.
see how that works?
your opinions are the ones in conflict with established scientific fact and yet you expect us to bear the burden of proof to convince you otherwise... :laugh:
explain to me how lactase persistence in peoples of European descent is in conflict with established scientific fact.0 -
Um. Yeah. Physics describes the physical world at both it's macro and micro levels, including atoms. Chemistry examines how these atoms make up elements and how these elements interact. Biology explores what living organisms, formed of these basic chemical structures, do. When I minored in evolutionary biology as an undergraduate, I had to take chemistry and biochemistry and understand how this applied to DNA (and RNA and proteins) and then how all of this translated to alleles that were present in an environment/physical appearance/behavior and how selection impacted all of this. When I studied social psychology, I had to understand how this all applied to brain/nerve functions because that explains how voluntary and involuntary learning happens.
Yes, true. But that doesn't negate the fact that separate branches of science are currently recognized and for very valid reasons, and was the basis of the analogy in the first place. Do you really not follow? Or just being intentionally obtuse?0 -
Burro and AKC are why we can't have nice things on these forums.
Instead of having a conversation they'd rather troll and flame and attempt to get a thread shut down.
Grow up.
I just get a kick in the pants when an opinion is made off to be fact, it is quite funny
There are plenty of facts behind the conclusions supporting the Paleo/Primal diet. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't negate the existence of the underlying facts.
And if we're going to get all semantic-y, all facts are opinions as they're filtered through human perception. But, that's an inane argument that fails to see the forest for the trees too.
I did not argue every aspect of paleo diets I have researched it along with a diet called Makers Diet. But it is his opinions that I am laughing about. Did you even look at what I responded too or are you blindly agreeing with someone likes the Paleo diet as well? that is also very amusing to me.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?
Not MY definition of evolution. That's yours.
I'm not the one making statements about other peoples' bodies and evolution. Those statements are yours to defend.
What credibility do you bring to the topic?0 -
Burro and AKC are why we can't have nice things on these forums.
Instead of having a conversation they'd rather troll and flame and attempt to get a thread shut down.
Grow up.
I just get a kick in the pants when an opinion is made off to be fact, it is quite funny
There are plenty of facts behind the conclusions supporting the Paleo/Primal diet. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't negate the existence of the underlying facts.
And if we're going to get all semantic-y, all facts are opinions as they're filtered through human perception. But, that's an inane argument that fails to see the forest for the trees too.
I did not argue every aspect of paleo diets I have researched it along with a diet called Makers Diet. But it is his opinions that I am laughing about. Did you even look at what I responded too or are you blindly agreeing with someone likes the Paleo diet as well? that is also very amusing to me.
Then what are you referring to?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?
Not MY definition of evolution. That's yours.
I'm not the one making statements about other peoples' bodies and evolution. Those statements are yours to defend.
What credibility do you bring to the topic?
I've had to ask four times now and still no answer. How do you know you're not sensitive to gluten? Have you ever tried going without gluten to compare?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.
It sounds like a hypochondriac to me.
Let's see if I can eliminate a particular part of my diet to figure out if I have an intolerance/disease that doesn't even affect me right now.
<Eliminates gluten.> Ahh, I feel so much better! I have so much energy! Now let's see if I still feel better after I eat some of it.
<Eats gluten.> I am sooooo sleepy. I MUST have an intolerance! Hey everybody, I have a gluten intolerance!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?
Not MY definition of evolution. That's yours.
I'm not the one making statements about other peoples' bodies and evolution. Those statements are yours to defend.
What credibility do you bring to the topic?
What credibility does he need? He's presenting the theories and explanations, not claiming to be the author of them. If it helps at all, I agree with the vast majority of what he has said and explained. I've read many of the studies and scientific literatue associated with them, and have a biology degree from one of the best research universities in the world. Is that credibility enough for a fitness website?0 -
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.
1. The "modifications" done to wheat were not "genetic modifications" in the sense of GMOs, it was simply done with breeding. In fact, from wiki " As of 2013, no GM wheat is grown commercially, but many field tests have been conducted."
2. Where is the evidence that it makes it harder to digest? And don't say celiacs, as that is apparently your conclusion. Increased detection/reporting could be the "culprit" there. To wit: "As a result, celiac disease has long been underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed. As doctors become more aware of the many varied symptoms of the disease and reliable blood tests become more available, diagnosis rates are increasing." (http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/celiac/)
3. If you suspect you have celiacs, why not go get a blood test and actually find out?
1) i never said GMO
2) I have acknowledged in this thread that detection is part of the 400% increase
3) I don't have celiacs, though blood tests are also unreliable. The best thing to do is to cut out gluten and try it. If you experience no difference, then go ahead and keep eating it. If you feel better... well... then the choice is yours to make on how to proceed. Personally I've tried to cut down my gluten intake, but I'm not strict about it.
You said genetically modified. Standard plant breeding is generally not referred to as "genetically modified", so I assumed you meant GMO. Please explain to me exactly how the breeding that has been done in modern times has actually changed the composition and nutritional value of wheat, with a specific emphasis on being "harder to digest".
How much of the 400% increase is due to the modifications in the wheat itself, and how much is due to increased detection?0 -
Food fad is a term originally used to describe simple, catchy diets that often focused on a single element such as cabbage, grapefruit or cottage cheese. In 1974, the term was defined as three categories of food fads.[5]
- A particular food or food group is exaggerated and purported to cure specific diseases.
- Foods are eliminated from an individual’s diet because they are viewed as harmful.
- An emphasis is placed on eating certain foods to express a particular lifestyle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_faddism
If you have an alternate definition that includes Amber's philosophy, please let me know.
Based on this definition, wouldn't any change be a fad then? Stop eating McDonalds, fad. Stop eating processed food, fad. Stop eating trans fat, fad. Sort of a useless definition.
[/quote]
Do you care to provide a definition of "food" and/or "food group" because I'm not sure that transfat qualifies as "food." Does cyanide qualify as "food" too? It naturally occurs in cherry and apple seeds. Does paleo help you distinguish foods from non-foods?
For the rest of it, nope. I would advise people to make sure they consume a diet over the course of a week that contains an appropriate amount of required macro and micronutrients. How they choose to partake of those nutrients is up to them. My understanding is that this is also the Go Kaleo philosophy.0 -
Burro and AKC are why we can't have nice things on these forums.
Instead of having a conversation they'd rather troll and flame and attempt to get a thread shut down.
Grow up.
I just get a kick in the pants when an opinion is made off to be fact, it is quite funny
So show me how I'm misguided instead of trolling, and I'd be glad to change my opinion.
see how that works?
your opinions are the ones in conflict with established scientific fact and yet you expect us to bear the burden of proof to convince you otherwise... :laugh:
explain to me how lactase persistence in peoples of European descent is in conflict with established scientific fact.
haven't you already posted a 1000 posts debating milk already?
what i'm referring to is the silliness about how the food supply is drastically different than it was just 50 years ago and that humans have not evolved to digest this "new" food yet. there is so much wrong with this notion that you stated as if it were established fact, that i could only assume you were joking.... have you not been doing stand-up comedy on this whole thread? i sure thought you were.0 -
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.
It sounds like a hypochondriac to me.
Let's see if I can eliminate a particular part of my diet to figure out if I have an intolerance/disease that doesn't even affect me right now.
<Eliminates gluten.> Ahh, I feel so much better! I have so much energy! Now let's see if I still feel better after I eat some of it.
<Eats gluten.> I am sooooo sleepy. I MUST have an intolerance! Hey everybody, I have a gluten intolerance!
Well, apparently since I was later diagnosed with both Hashimoto's thyroiditis and insulin resistance, apparently not a hypochondriac. But thanks for the insult from your seat of ignorance.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?
Not MY definition of evolution. That's yours.
I'm not the one making statements about other peoples' bodies and evolution. Those statements are yours to defend.
What credibility do you bring to the topic?
I've had to ask four times now and still no answer. How do you know you're not sensitive to gluten? Have you ever tried going without gluten to compare?
Why would you go gluten-free if you have no issues with it?0 -
Bumping for entertainment value.0
-
Burro and AKC are why we can't have nice things on these forums.
Instead of having a conversation they'd rather troll and flame and attempt to get a thread shut down.
Grow up.
I just get a kick in the pants when an opinion is made off to be fact, it is quite funny
There are plenty of facts behind the conclusions supporting the Paleo/Primal diet. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't negate the existence of the underlying facts.
And if we're going to get all semantic-y, all facts are opinions as they're filtered through human perception. But, that's an inane argument that fails to see the forest for the trees too.
I did not argue every aspect of paleo diets I have researched it along with a diet called Makers Diet. But it is his opinions that I am laughing about. Did you even look at what I responded too or are you blindly agreeing with someone likes the Paleo diet as well? that is also very amusing to me.
I am not on the paleo nor primal diet, I think Veganism, Paleo, Primal, (moderately) low carb, and many other diets all have something of value to offer, and specifically I feel pretty strongly about gluten being an issue with the way its been cultivated over the last 50 years.
Which of my opinions specifically do you find amusing? I can try and explain further but I feel like it won't help. :laugh:0 -
I've had to ask four times now and still no answer. How do you know you're not sensitive to gluten? Have you ever tried going without gluten to compare?
Why would you go gluten-free if you have no issues with it?
A lot of people don't realize they have issues with it until the don't eat it for a while. It's a pretty common experience.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?
Not MY definition of evolution. That's yours.
I'm not the one making statements about other peoples' bodies and evolution. Those statements are yours to defend.
What credibility do you bring to the topic?
What credibility does he need? He's presenting the theories and explanations, not claiming to be the author of them. If it helps at all, I agree with the vast majority of what he has said and explained. I've read many of the studies and scientific literatue associated with them, and have a biology degree from one of the best research universities in the world. Is that credibility enough for a fitness website?
No. Do us the courtesy of providing the same academic rigor that one would expect of a graduating high school student.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).
Also see: placebo effect and confirmation bias.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