We don't know what constitutes a true paleo diet!
Replies
-
True. But I'm sure you see my point... (which is where I was in the beginning until your pal kept trying to shove gluten-free down my throat)... why should I "fix" something that isn't broken?
The problem with a lot of your arguments is that you extrapolate them out to ridiculousness and irrelevance. You can do that with virtually anything, so it's not very helpful.0 -
I thought grass-fed beef basically just had LESS fat than grain fed. There might be some difference in the ratios, but the overall amount of omega fatty acids is pretty low IIRC.
The difference between grass-fed and feed-lot is very small. They are, for all practical purposes, nutritionally equivalent. Pretty much all farmed meat is basically the same.
The real difference is between wild meat and farmed meat - the change in composition of the meat between the two is staggering. If "paleo" mandated wild meat, then there might actually be some substance to it...but it doesn't, and there isn't.
(As a frame of reference - I actually raise organic, free-ranged meat. Which I love to eat. But the nutritional claims made for the product are by and large bull****.)
this is absolutely not true. sorry. grass fed beef has almost no association with heart disease whereas feed lot beef does. grass fed beef omega ratios are similar to that of wild fish. not so with feed lot beef.
and question then - why raise them if they're not better than feed lot meat?0 -
anyway I think I'm done with this merry-go-round. you're perfect, you're doing great, there's nothing you could possibly do to improve how your body functions and I'm very happy for you.
Now you're on to something.
0 -
Because I have a frame of reference. I'm attracted to women and not attracted to men, though I've kissed both. I enjoy a good suit, and happen to have the correct genitalia for my body.
So now you give me YOUR frame of reference. I showed you mine, show me yours.
Because my health indicators are all excellent, I feel terrific and I have no difficulty digesting the foods I eat.
BTW, I said before that I have no difficulty digesting food.
Here's the thing. You THINK you're in the correct genitalia for your body, just like I THINK that I'm feeling terrific.
God this is literally like arguing with a brick wall.
I get what point you're attempting to make, but if you are on this site in the first place, there must have been SOME point in time at which you didn't feel terrific, yes? There has been no point in my life when I've questioned whether or not I'm chemically a man. I'm not on a gender confusion message board we're on a food message board.
I have kissed a man and I know for a fact that I'm not attracted to men. That's a frame of reference. Have you tried being gluten free to know that it's something your body doesn't need?
anyway I think I'm done with this merry-go-round. you're perfect, you're doing great, there's nothing you could possibly do to improve how your body functions and I'm very happy for you.
:noway:
Well, this is getting more interesting . . .
haha figured that would provoke some fun responses. meh I don't care, nothing to hide. most guys have and just wont admit it
although I have a legitimate excuse being an actor
0 -
True. But I'm sure you see my point... (which is where I was in the beginning until your pal kept trying to shove gluten-free down my throat)... why should I "fix" something that isn't broken?
The problem with a lot of your arguments is that you extrapolate them out to ridiculousness and irrelevance. You can do that with virtually anything, so it's not very helpful.
Sometimes it takes outrageousness to get through to some people.
Why you are White Knighting that guy is beyond me. You're better than that.0 -
Which branches of science support the idea that we didn't evolve to eat grain?
Loosely speaking, biology, chemistry, biochemistry and genetics -- arguably evolutionary biology/genetics as well depending on your definition thereof.
Now I will provide the rigor expected of a high school student:
Critics have questioned the accuracy of the science on which the diet is based. John A. McDougall (M.D), author of The Starch Solution, attempted to discredit the science used to determine the paleolithic diet, and proposed that the human diet around this time was instead based primarily on starches.
The evolutionary assumptions underlying the Paleolithic diet have been disputed.[23][10][70][71] According to Alexander Ströhle, Maike Wolters and Andreas Hahn, with the Department of Food Science at the University of Hanover, the statement that the human genome evolved during the Pleistocene (a period from 1,808,000 to 11,550 years ago) rests on the gene-centered view of evolution, which they believe to be controversial.[71] They rely on Gray (2001)[72] to argue that evolution of organisms cannot be reduced to the genetic level with reference to mutation, and that there is no one-to-one relationship between genotype and phenotype.[71] They further question the notion that 10,000 years is an insufficient period of time to ensure an adequate adaptation to agrarian diets.[71] They note that alleles conferring lactose tolerance increased to high frequencies in Europe just a few thousand years after animal husbandry was invented. Recent increases in the number of copies of the gene for salivary amylase, which digests starch, appear to be related to the development of agriculture.[73] Referring to Wilson (1994),[74] Ströhle et al. argue that "the number of generations that a species existed in the old environment was irrelevant, and that the response to the change of the environment of a species would depend on the heritability of the traits, the intensity of selection and the number of generations that selection acts."[75] They state that if the diet of Neolithic agriculturalists had been in discordance with their physiology, then this would have created a selection pressure for evolutionary change. Modern humans, such as Europeans, whose ancestors have subsisted on agrarian diets for 400–500 generations, should be somehow adequately adapted to it. In response to this argument, Wolfgang Kopp states that "we have to take into account that death from atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD) occurs later during life, as a rule after the reproduction phase. Even a high mortality from CVD after the reproduction phase will create little selection pressure. Thus, it seems that a diet can be functional (it keeps us going) and dysfunctional (it causes health problems) at the same time."[75] Moreover, S. Boyd Eaton and colleagues have indicated that "comparative genetic data provide compelling evidence against the contention that long exposure to agricultural and industrial circumstances has distanced us, genetically, from our Stone Age ancestors";[4] however, they mention exceptions such as increased lactose and gluten tolerance, which improve ability to digest dairy and grains, while other studies indicate that human adaptive evolution has accelerated since the Paleolithic.[76]
Referencing Mahner et al. (2001)[77] and Ströhle et al. (2006),[78] Ströhle et al. state that "whatever is the fact, to think that a dietary factor is valuable (functional) to the organism only when there was ‘genetical adaptation’ and hence a new dietary factor is dysfunctional per se because there was no evolutionary adaptation to it, such a panselectionist misreading of biological evolution seems to be inspired by a naive adaptationistic view of life."[71]
Katharine Milton, a professor of physical anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, has also disputed the evolutionary logic upon which the Paleolithic diet is based. She questions the premise that the metabolism of modern humans must be genetically adapted to the dietary conditions of the Paleolithic.[10] Relying on several of her previous publications,[79][80][81][82] Milton states that "there is little evidence to suggest that human nutritional requirements or human digestive physiology were significantly affected by such diets at any point in human evolution."[10]
There is some evidence suggesting that Paleolithic societies were processing cereals for food use at least as early as 23,000 BCE. These findings are a matter of dispute.[83][84][85][86][87]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo_diet
TL:DR - there is plenty of evidence showing that humans as a group have adapted to grain and dairy products in our diet.0 -
o man this topic is killing me
0 -
Because my health indicators are all excellent, I feel terrific and I have no difficulty digesting the foods I eat.
BTW, I said before that I have no difficulty digesting food.
Here's the thing. You THINK you're in the correct genitalia for your body, just like I THINK that I'm feeling terrific.
Well, it's considerably easier to try a month-long Paleo experiment than it is gender reassignment. Not exactly fair comparisons for that reason alone.
True. But I'm sure you see my point... (which is where I was in the beginning until your pal kept trying to shove gluten-free down my throat)... why should I "fix" something that isn't broken?
Honestly the fact that you think I was shoving it down your throat is telling. I was making broad statements and you made it about yourself, to which I asked if you had a frame of reference. Had you just responded to that first question none of the rest of this would've happened at all.
I'm not gluten free. I don't advocate gluten free unless you feel like it helps you out. I feel I've been pretty reasonable about all of this.
You're the one that brought up gender roles. lulz.0 -
Because my health indicators are all excellent, I feel terrific and I have no difficulty digesting the foods I eat.
BTW, I said before that I have no difficulty digesting food.
Here's the thing. You THINK you're in the correct genitalia for your body, just like I THINK that I'm feeling terrific.
Well, it's considerably easier to try a month-long Paleo experiment than it is gender reassignment. Not exactly fair comparisons for that reason alone.
True. But I'm sure you see my point... (which is where I was in the beginning until your pal kept trying to shove gluten-free down my throat)... why should I "fix" something that isn't broken?
Honestly the fact that you think I was shoving it down your throat is telling. I was making broad statements and you made it about yourself, to which I asked if you had a frame of reference. Had you just responded to that first question none of the rest of this would've happened at all.
I'm not gluten free. I don't advocate gluten free unless you feel like it helps you out. I feel I've been pretty reasonable about all of this.
You're the one that brought up gender roles. lulz.
I thought you were done banging your head against the brick wall?
lulz.0 -
True. But I'm sure you see my point... (which is where I was in the beginning until your pal kept trying to shove gluten-free down my throat)... why should I "fix" something that isn't broken?
The problem with a lot of your arguments is that you extrapolate them out to ridiculousness and irrelevance. You can do that with virtually anything, so it's not very helpful.
Sometimes it takes outrageousness to get through to some people.
Why you are White Knighting that guy is beyond me. You're better than that.
You certainly don't know me well enough to know that I'm better than that.
But, so far, from what I've seen of him, his posts have been generally reasonable and respectful. I appreciate that. I may not agree with everything he says, though I do agree with some of it, but he seems to be interested in engaging in meaningful exchange of ideas -- not throwing up straw men, red herrings or clearly erroneous arguments or just engaging in baseless ridicule and mockery. I can't say the same for some people I've encountered on this site (not directed at you).
I'd like to encourage and support that sort of discourse, regardless of whether I personally agree with the content of the discourse. It's a great way to learn or be introduced to new ideas, if the same spirit is shown by others.0 -
Which branches of science support the idea that we didn't evolve to eat grain?
Loosely speaking, biology, chemistry, biochemistry and genetics -- arguably evolutionary biology/genetics as well depending on your definition thereof.
Now I will provide the rigor expected of a high school student:
.....[edited for brevity]
TL:DR - there is plenty of evidence showing that humans as a group have adapted to grain and dairy products in our diet.
I don't think there is anyone arguing that the scientific proof is dispositive in either direction, but just that there are bases for the diet, regardless of the imperfection of the label.0 -
True. But I'm sure you see my point... (which is where I was in the beginning until your pal kept trying to shove gluten-free down my throat)... why should I "fix" something that isn't broken?
The problem with a lot of your arguments is that you extrapolate them out to ridiculousness and irrelevance. You can do that with virtually anything, so it's not very helpful.
Sometimes it takes outrageousness to get through to some people.
Why you are White Knighting that guy is beyond me. You're better than that.
You certainly don't know me well enough to know that I'm better than that.
But, so far, from what I've seen of him, his posts have been generally reasonable and respectful. I appreciate that. I may not agree with everything he says, though I do agree with some of it, but he seems to be interested in engaging in meaningful exchange of ideas -- not throwing up straw men, red herrings or clearly erroneous arguments or just engaging in baseless ridicule and mockery. I can't say the same for some people I've encountered on this site (not directed at you).
I'd like to encourage and support that sort of discourse, regardless of whether I personally agree with the content of the discourse. It's a great way to learn or be introduced to new ideas, if the same spirit is shown by others.
Appreciate that by the way.
I don't ask that people agree with me, and hell if you can prove I'm wrong I'm willing to eat crow - I've done it before and will again. Strangely enough I'm here to learn as much as try and offer advice. But it's the mockery and the trolling that really sets me off.0 -
You certainly don't know me well enough to know that I'm better than that.
But, so far, from what I've seen of him, his posts have been generally reasonable and respectful. I appreciate that. I may not agree with everything he says, though I do agree with some of it, but he seems to be interested in engaging in meaningful exchange of ideas -- not throwing up straw men, red herrings or clearly erroneous arguments or just engaging in baseless ridicule and mockery. I can't say the same for some people I've encountered on this site (not directed at you).
I'd like to encourage and support that sort of discourse, regardless of whether I personally agree with the content of the discourse. It's a great way to learn or be introduced to new ideas, if the same spirit is shown by others.
Appreciate that by the way.
I don't ask that people agree with me, and hell if you can prove I'm wrong I'm willing to eat crow - I've done it before and will again. Strangely enough I'm here to learn as much as try and offer advice. But it's the mockery and the trolling that really sets me off.
I agree. I don't mind being wrong. I don't particularly like it per se, but I realize it's necessary if I'm to grow and learn, and I definitely like that.
The mockery and trolling or outright bashing is what is a turn-off to me too. Reasonable people can disagree, but some folks don't seem to be able to acknowledge that. And that's a shame.0 -
True. But I'm sure you see my point... (which is where I was in the beginning until your pal kept trying to shove gluten-free down my throat)... why should I "fix" something that isn't broken?
The problem with a lot of your arguments is that you extrapolate them out to ridiculousness and irrelevance. You can do that with virtually anything, so it's not very helpful.
Sometimes it takes outrageousness to get through to some people.
Why you are White Knighting that guy is beyond me. You're better than that.
You certainly don't know me well enough to know that I'm better than that.
But, so far, from what I've seen of him, his posts have been generally reasonable and respectful. I appreciate that. I may not agree with everything he says, though I do agree with some of it, but he seems to be interested in engaging in meaningful exchange of ideas -- not throwing up straw men, red herrings or clearly erroneous arguments or just engaging in baseless ridicule and mockery. I can't say the same for some people I've encountered on this site (not directed at you).
I'd like to encourage and support that sort of discourse, regardless of whether I personally agree with the content of the discourse. It's a great way to learn or be introduced to new ideas, if the same spirit is shown by others.
You are agreeing with the blind opinions that has not had an ounce of backup.
The whole evolution thing i still killing me. I am waiting for the a pink cow to show up as GMO. Since all meats we eat now are GMO according to reddy.0 -
this is absolutely not true. sorry. grass fed beef has almost no association with heart disease whereas feed lot beef does.
Complete and utter bull****.
Over-eating either one has equivalent increased risk. Under-eating either one has equivalent lack of increased risk.
There are LOTS of good reasons to eat (more or less) free-ranged meat - nutritional content of the meat itself is not, however, one of them.0 -
True. But I'm sure you see my point... (which is where I was in the beginning until your pal kept trying to shove gluten-free down my throat)... why should I "fix" something that isn't broken?
The problem with a lot of your arguments is that you extrapolate them out to ridiculousness and irrelevance. You can do that with virtually anything, so it's not very helpful.
Sometimes it takes outrageousness to get through to some people.
Why you are White Knighting that guy is beyond me. You're better than that.
You certainly don't know me well enough to know that I'm better than that.
But, so far, from what I've seen of him, his posts have been generally reasonable and respectful. I appreciate that. I may not agree with everything he says, though I do agree with some of it, but he seems to be interested in engaging in meaningful exchange of ideas -- not throwing up straw men, red herrings or clearly erroneous arguments or just engaging in baseless ridicule and mockery. I can't say the same for some people I've encountered on this site (not directed at you).
I'd like to encourage and support that sort of discourse, regardless of whether I personally agree with the content of the discourse. It's a great way to learn or be introduced to new ideas, if the same spirit is shown by others.
You are agreeing with the blind opinions that has not had an ounce of backup.
The whole evolution thing i still killing me. I am waiting for the a pink cow to show up as GMO. Since all meats we eat now are GMO according to reddy.
can you quote me as saying that?0 -
True. But I'm sure you see my point... (which is where I was in the beginning until your pal kept trying to shove gluten-free down my throat)... why should I "fix" something that isn't broken?
The problem with a lot of your arguments is that you extrapolate them out to ridiculousness and irrelevance. You can do that with virtually anything, so it's not very helpful.
Sometimes it takes outrageousness to get through to some people.
Why you are White Knighting that guy is beyond me. You're better than that.
You certainly don't know me well enough to know that I'm better than that.
But, so far, from what I've seen of him, his posts have been generally reasonable and respectful. I appreciate that. I may not agree with everything he says, though I do agree with some of it, but he seems to be interested in engaging in meaningful exchange of ideas -- not throwing up straw men, red herrings or clearly erroneous arguments or just engaging in baseless ridicule and mockery. I can't say the same for some people I've encountered on this site (not directed at you).
I'd like to encourage and support that sort of discourse, regardless of whether I personally agree with the content of the discourse. It's a great way to learn or be introduced to new ideas, if the same spirit is shown by others.
Appreciate that by the way.
I don't ask that people agree with me, and hell if you can prove I'm wrong I'm willing to eat crow - I've done it before and will again. Strangely enough I'm here to learn as much as try and offer advice. But it's the mockery and the trolling that really sets me off.
The reason for the mockery is that there really is no debate on paleo. It has no sound scientific basis for the claims that it is the way people did eat at that time or should eat now. Feel free to continue, but this just isn't taken seriously by the scientific community. For me, and many others, that's enough.
Now, please continue as I know you will.0 -
True. But I'm sure you see my point... (which is where I was in the beginning until your pal kept trying to shove gluten-free down my throat)... why should I "fix" something that isn't broken?
The problem with a lot of your arguments is that you extrapolate them out to ridiculousness and irrelevance. You can do that with virtually anything, so it's not very helpful.
Sometimes it takes outrageousness to get through to some people.
Why you are White Knighting that guy is beyond me. You're better than that.
You certainly don't know me well enough to know that I'm better than that.
But, so far, from what I've seen of him, his posts have been generally reasonable and respectful. I appreciate that. I may not agree with everything he says, though I do agree with some of it, but he seems to be interested in engaging in meaningful exchange of ideas -- not throwing up straw men, red herrings or clearly erroneous arguments or just engaging in baseless ridicule and mockery. I can't say the same for some people I've encountered on this site (not directed at you).
I'd like to encourage and support that sort of discourse, regardless of whether I personally agree with the content of the discourse. It's a great way to learn or be introduced to new ideas, if the same spirit is shown by others.
Appreciate that by the way.
I don't ask that people agree with me, and hell if you can prove I'm wrong I'm willing to eat crow - I've done it before and will again. Strangely enough I'm here to learn as much as try and offer advice. But it's the mockery and the trolling that really sets me off.
The reason for the mockery is that there really is no debate on paleo. It has no sound scientific basis for the claims that it is the way people did eat at that time or should eat now. Feel free to continue, but this just isn't taken seriously by the scientific community. For me, and many others, that's enough.
Now, please continue as I know you will.
you realize we all agree with you regarding the evolutionary science... yes? maybe you haven't actually read.
we're debating the nutritional aspects of the diet, not whether it actually resembles paleolithic diets.0 -
Came in to read just this last page of this thread and..... :yawn:
so much regret. on my part.
TL:DR.0 -
Which branches of science support the idea that we didn't evolve to eat grain?
Loosely speaking, biology, chemistry, biochemistry and genetics -- arguably evolutionary biology/genetics as well depending on your definition thereof.
Now I will provide the rigor expected of a high school student:
.....[edited for brevity]
TL:DR - there is plenty of evidence showing that humans as a group have adapted to grain and dairy products in our diet.
I don't think there is anyone arguing that the scientific proof is dispositive in either direction, but just that there are bases for the diet, regardless of the imperfection of the label.
Ok. Perfect. Cite the studies that support the lack of human adaptation to grain/dairy/legumes/potatoes.0 -
True. But I'm sure you see my point... (which is where I was in the beginning until your pal kept trying to shove gluten-free down my throat)... why should I "fix" something that isn't broken?
The problem with a lot of your arguments is that you extrapolate them out to ridiculousness and irrelevance. You can do that with virtually anything, so it's not very helpful.
Sometimes it takes outrageousness to get through to some people.
Why you are White Knighting that guy is beyond me. You're better than that.
You certainly don't know me well enough to know that I'm better than that.
But, so far, from what I've seen of him, his posts have been generally reasonable and respectful. I appreciate that. I may not agree with everything he says, though I do agree with some of it, but he seems to be interested in engaging in meaningful exchange of ideas -- not throwing up straw men, red herrings or clearly erroneous arguments or just engaging in baseless ridicule and mockery. I can't say the same for some people I've encountered on this site (not directed at you).
I'd like to encourage and support that sort of discourse, regardless of whether I personally agree with the content of the discourse. It's a great way to learn or be introduced to new ideas, if the same spirit is shown by others.
Appreciate that by the way.
I don't ask that people agree with me, and hell if you can prove I'm wrong I'm willing to eat crow - I've done it before and will again. Strangely enough I'm here to learn as much as try and offer advice. But it's the mockery and the trolling that really sets me off.
The reason for the mockery is that there really is no debate on paleo. It has no sound scientific basis for the claims that it is the way people did eat at that time or should eat now. Feel free to continue, but this just isn't taken seriously by the scientific community. For me, and many others, that's enough.
Now, please continue as I know you will.
you realize we all agree with you regarding the evolutionary science... yes? maybe you haven't actually read.
we're debating the nutritional aspects of the diet, not whether it actually resembles paleolithic diets.
We are debating whether the nutritional aspects of the diet are founded in our evolutionary history.
Edited to add: I'd still like to know why the soluble fiber in grapefruit is ok while the soluble fiber in oatmeal is bad.0 -
You are agreeing with the blind opinions that has not had an ounce of backup.
The whole evolution thing i still killing me. I am waiting for the a pink cow to show up as GMO. Since all meats we eat now are GMO according to reddy.
Absolutely incorrect about your assumption.
I have read a lot of the back-up, so that's why I agree with some of his assertions/opinions. I read A LOT of scientific studies and supporting documentation before I decide to try out Paleo for myself, though I ended more in the Primal zone. I realize that others can come to different conclusions from reading those same studies, but that's a different thing.0 -
Ok. Perfect. Cite the studies that support the lack of human adaptation to grain/dairy/legumes/potatoes.
Good luck with that. Humans have been eating grains for literally hundreds of thousands of years.0 -
You are agreeing with the blind opinions that has not had an ounce of backup.
The whole evolution thing i still killing me. I am waiting for the a pink cow to show up as GMO. Since all meats we eat now are GMO according to reddy.
Absolutely incorrect about your assumption.
I have read a lot of the back-up, so that's why I agree with some of his assertions/opinions. I read A LOT of scientific studies and supporting documentation before I decide to try out Paleo for myself, though I ended more in the Primal zone. I realize that others can come to different conclusions from reading those same studies, but that's a different thing.
Cite the back-up.0 -
Came in to read just this last page of this thread and..... :yawn:
so much regret. on my part.
TL:DR.
that means you missed the part about me kissing a dude and how that pertains to being gluten free!0 -
The reason for the mockery is that there really is no debate on paleo. It has no sound scientific basis for the claims that it is the way people did eat at that time or should eat now. Feel free to continue, but this just isn't taken seriously by the scientific community. For me, and many others, that's enough.
Now, please continue as I know you will.
Really? If so, what do you call all the studies on gluten, lectins, casein, lactose, insulin sensitivity, diabetes, etc.? You can find a whole host of ACTUAL studies cites in books like Good Calories Bad Calories or Deep Nutrition. Or some listed on marksdailyapple.com.
Now, you may not agree with the ultimate conclusions drawn from such studies or find it flawed -- many people do disagree -- but to say that there is no science behind it is just categorically incorrect.0 -
True. But I'm sure you see my point... (which is where I was in the beginning until your pal kept trying to shove gluten-free down my throat)... why should I "fix" something that isn't broken?
The problem with a lot of your arguments is that you extrapolate them out to ridiculousness and irrelevance. You can do that with virtually anything, so it's not very helpful.
Sometimes it takes outrageousness to get through to some people.
Why you are White Knighting that guy is beyond me. You're better than that.
You certainly don't know me well enough to know that I'm better than that.
But, so far, from what I've seen of him, his posts have been generally reasonable and respectful. I appreciate that. I may not agree with everything he says, though I do agree with some of it, but he seems to be interested in engaging in meaningful exchange of ideas -- not throwing up straw men, red herrings or clearly erroneous arguments or just engaging in baseless ridicule and mockery. I can't say the same for some people I've encountered on this site (not directed at you).
I'd like to encourage and support that sort of discourse, regardless of whether I personally agree with the content of the discourse. It's a great way to learn or be introduced to new ideas, if the same spirit is shown by others.
Appreciate that by the way.
I don't ask that people agree with me, and hell if you can prove I'm wrong I'm willing to eat crow - I've done it before and will again. Strangely enough I'm here to learn as much as try and offer advice. But it's the mockery and the trolling that really sets me off.
The reason for the mockery is that there really is no debate on paleo. It has no sound scientific basis for the claims that it is the way people did eat at that time or should eat now. Feel free to continue, but this just isn't taken seriously by the scientific community. For me, and many others, that's enough.
Now, please continue as I know you will.
you realize we all agree with you regarding the evolutionary science... yes? maybe you haven't actually read.
we're debating the nutritional aspects of the diet, not whether it actually resembles paleolithic diets.
We are debating whether the nutritional aspects of the diet are founded in our evolutionary history.
Edited to add: I'd still like to know why the soluble fiber in grapefruit is ok while the soluble fiber in oatmeal is bad.
He accused me of not reading then missed the "should" portion of my statement. Please enjoy him.0 -
We are debating whether the nutritional aspects of the diet are founded in our evolutionary history.
Edited to add: I'd still like to know why the soluble fiber in grapefruit is ok while the soluble fiber in oatmeal is bad.
No, that's what YOU keep trying to debate. The rest of us have moved on a LONG time ago. You just seem to be unable to understand this.0 -
You are agreeing with the blind opinions that has not had an ounce of backup.
The whole evolution thing i still killing me. I am waiting for the a pink cow to show up as GMO. Since all meats we eat now are GMO according to reddy.
Absolutely incorrect about your assumption.
I have read a lot of the back-up, so that's why I agree with some of his assertions/opinions. I read A LOT of scientific studies and supporting documentation before I decide to try out Paleo for myself, though I ended more in the Primal zone. I realize that others can come to different conclusions from reading those same studies, but that's a different thing.
Cite the back-up.
Here are some great sources -- look for studies cited in Deep Nutrition, Good Calories Bad Calories, or marksdailyapple.com They're not all great, but there are quite a few that are solid. Go on, come back once you've finished.0 -
Came in to read just this last page of this thread and..... :yawn:
so much regret. on my part.
TL:DR.
that means you missed the part about me kissing a dude and how that pertains to being gluten free!
Well, damn.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