We don't know what constitutes a true paleo diet!
Replies
-
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.
All nutritional subjects have some back and forth in results. This is natural and expected and why multiple studies are done, and why it is so important to take all studies into consideration. What studies with opposing conclusions did you include in your research?
Well, for me, I wasn't looking to write a definitive paper on it. I was looking for a plausible basis for the ideas behind it in order to see if it was worth giving it a try. That's what I found, so I tried it. And I found it to be very beneficial for me, and was also the driving force behind pushing my doctors more for further testing that (a few doctors and specialists) later that showed I had both Hashimoto's and insulin resistance.
Before learning that, Primal had been the one thing that I'd found that helped with my major fatigue, which I later learned was probably caused by a combination of both of those issues, and for which I'm now getting actual treatment (though, ironically, Paleo/Primal was what my specialist recommended as a diet plan).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.
And at the rate Monsanto is going with genetic modification of food crops, we'll never catch up.0 -
Is that coming from the right or left side of your brain, LOL?
For me, I happen to be one of the smaller subset of the population that is considered dual brained, or equally balanced between the hemispheres -- so it would be coming from both sides. But, you probably will ask me to prove that too...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.
Seriously? You are seriously directing me to pop-nutrition books as a source and expecting me to dig through all their allusions to real research and find the ones that don't have methodological flaws and then show you how they don't apply.
Apparently, it's your responsibility to prove their assertions.
it's not any of our responsibility to provide proof for anything. this is a message board. it's an exchange of ideas. if anyone sees an idea they find intriguing they can research it all they want and decide what to think for themselves. This whole "prove it" mentality where anyone who makes a claim has to spend an hour pouring through websites to find the articles and studies they didn't think to bookmark when reading, JUST so that people won't flame them for posting an opinion is... just silly. lol
Nuh, unh. She's already read many studies in support of the paleo diet including ones involving biochemistry, etc. No need to do anything but dig those up.
and i'm sure i've read the same ones, many are in book form. want me to scan them? can we all just stop saying "prove it" to each other since no one on either side is willing to do it? lol0 -
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 -
Is that coming from the right or left side of your brain, LOL?
For me, I happen to be one of the smaller subset of the population that is considered dual brained, or equally balanced between the hemispheres -- so it would be coming from both sides. But, you probably will ask me to prove that too...
I took an online IQ test last week that said my IQ is 190.
Need I say more? Credibility: Confirmed.0 -
Apparently, it's your responsibility to prove their assertions.
No joke.
Her: There's no science behind the claims.
Me: Yes, there is.
Her: Oh, yeah, where?
Me: Here.
Her: You expect me to actually read this?
Me: Yes, I do. I thought that was the whole point in asking for them.
You referenced books that have a bias, agenda, and incentive--to sell books. Of course it's going to be slanted. As for the studies in those books, well, I wish I knew what they were. But you didn't reference them.
Yeah, I'm not going to do all the work for you. You know where to look, if you want to. Talk about intellectually lazy people.
Of course, they have a bias -- any compilation does, regardless of whether they try to reduce it or not. You just asked for studies. There they are.0 -
Apparently, it's your responsibility to prove their assertions.
No joke.
Her: There's no science behind the claims.
Me: Yes, there is.
Her: Oh, yeah, where?
Me: Here.
Her: You expect me to actually read this?
Me: Yes, I do. I thought that was the whole point in asking for them.
You referenced books that have a bias, agenda, and incentive--to sell books. Of course it's going to be slanted. As for the studies in those books, well, I wish I knew what they were. But you didn't reference them.
I hate to break it to you, every published paper has a bias -- it's inherent in the human experience. If you don't think research scientists are biased as well -- whether it's due to private funding, searching for a specific cure, seeking grants, etc. -- I don't know what to tell you. Most studies try to eliminate that as much as possible and be objective, but there is always a bias and it's up to those that review/read them, to decipher that for themselves...and you see that in whether people agree with the conclusions, dispute, etc. them. Nature of scientific research.0 -
Is that coming from the right or left side of your brain, LOL?
For me, I happen to be one of the smaller subset of the population that is considered dual brained, or equally balanced between the hemispheres -- so it would be coming from both sides. But, you probably will ask me to prove that too...
I would actually want you to cite any research that shows that the pop-psych belief has any meaning in actual cognitive research.
Here's a nice summary of one researcher's insights into the topic:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/12/02/248089436/the-truth-about-the-left-brain-right-brain-relationship0 -
Apparently, it's your responsibility to prove their assertions.
No joke.
Her: There's no science behind the claims.
Me: Yes, there is.
Her: Oh, yeah, where?
Me: Here.
Her: You expect me to actually read this?
Me: Yes, I do. I thought that was the whole point in asking for them.
You referenced books that have a bias, agenda, and incentive--to sell books. Of course it's going to be slanted. As for the studies in those books, well, I wish I knew what they were. But you didn't reference them.
Yeah, I'm not going to do all the work for you. You know where to look, if you want to. Talk about intellectually lazy people.
Of course, they have a bias -- any compilation does, regardless of whether they try to reduce it or not. You just asked for studies. There they are.
Actually, I didn't ask for studies. I think that was someone else. I just attempted to explained why books sold at Barnes & Noble generally aren't an accepted form of factual science on these boards. But intellectually lazy? That's a new one I've been called.0 -
Why is it such a big deal that we try to eat like people did thousands of years ago, whose life expectancy was at best 30-40 years?0
-
Is that coming from the right or left side of your brain, LOL?
For me, I happen to be one of the smaller subset of the population that is considered dual brained, or equally balanced between the hemispheres -- so it would be coming from both sides. But, you probably will ask me to prove that too...
I would actually want you to cite any research that shows that the pop-psych belief has any meaning in actual cognitive research.
Here's a nice summary of one researcher's insights into the topic:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/12/02/248089436/the-truth-about-the-left-brain-right-brain-relationship
Once again, there are those that disagree. But disagreement does not equal no scientific basis. Glad, we finally agree on that.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.
And at the rate Monsanto is going with genetic modification of food crops, we'll never catch up.
There is currently no GM wheat on the market.
But is ANYONE going to tell me all the awful things that have happened to wheat by normal breeding methods in the past 50 years that makes it so toxic now?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.
And at the rate Monsanto is going with genetic modification of food crops, we'll never catch up.
There is currently no GM wheat on the market.
But is ANYONE going to tell me all the awful things that have happened to wheat by normal breeding methods in the past 50 years that makes it so toxic now?
Does triticale count? Because that *kitten* is gross. :laugh:0 -
Apparently, it's your responsibility to prove their assertions.
No joke.
Her: There's no science behind the claims.
Me: Yes, there is.
Her: Oh, yeah, where?
Me: Here.
Her: You expect me to actually read this?
Me: Yes, I do. I thought that was the whole point in asking for them.
I'm assuming you are aware of PubMed? If people are asking me for actual scientific research, I can link them directly there and do it all the time. I have Mark's book (at home). I read it, and looked at some of the studies. I even tried it for awhile. But scientifically, I did and do not find the evidence compelling.
And (btw) you are making the assertions, so the burden of proof is on you.0 -
Why is it such a big deal that we try to eat like people did thousands of years ago, whose life expectancy was at best 30-40 years?
That may be the average due to high infant mortality, accident, etc. But there is actually considerable evidence that some of our ancestors lived considerably longer -- well into their 70s --- just not on average for other reasons.
But I don't remember where I read that, so I can't cite the book/study.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?
Tell that to the people of Oregon who have discovered GMO wheat... http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021737989_gmowheatxml.html0 -
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.
And at the rate Monsanto is going with genetic modification of food crops, we'll never catch up.
There is currently no GM wheat on the market.
But is ANYONE going to tell me all the awful things that have happened to wheat by normal breeding methods in the past 50 years that makes it so toxic now?
they've bred it to withstand pesticides, weather and critters. Doing so has produced a hardier, tougher grain that is easier to mass produce but harder to digest. I don't have access to the sources at this moment as I'm about to head out, but I'll try and find it tonight.
in a similar vein, look into "nutritional stress", or how much effort your body has to put into digesting certain foods vs others, as this is a big part of the issue with gluten IMO0 -
Why is it such a big deal that we try to eat like people did thousands of years ago, whose life expectancy was at best 30-40 years?
That may be the average due to high infant mortality, accident, etc. But there is actually considerable evidence that some of our ancestors lived considerably longer -- well into their 70s --- just not on average for other reasons.
But I don't remember where I read that, so I can't cite the book/study.
They died at 30 because Sabretooth Tigers.0 -
Why is it such a big deal that we try to eat like people did thousands of years ago, whose life expectancy was at best 30-40 years?
That may be the average due to high infant mortality, accident, etc. But there is actually considerable evidence that some of our ancestors lived considerably longer -- well into their 70s --- just not on average for other reasons.
But I don't remember where I read that, so I can't cite the book/study.
Oh good lord. yes, there were a few outliers who lived that long, but the majority of the population did not. As recently as the early 1900s, people lived mostly to only around 50 years of age on average. Especially those of European descent. Primarily due to poor hygiene and dental health. So I'll keep eating today's foods and brushing my teeth and whatnot, and those who choose to can go back to living it up caveman style.0 -
Apparently, it's your responsibility to prove their assertions.
No joke.
Her: There's no science behind the claims.
Me: Yes, there is.
Her: Oh, yeah, where?
Me: Here.
Her: You expect me to actually read this?
Me: Yes, I do. I thought that was the whole point in asking for them.
I'm assuming you are aware of PubMed? If people are asking me for actual scientific research, I can link them directly there and do it all the time. I have Mark's book (at home). I read it, and looked at some of the studies. I even tried it for awhile. But scientifically, I did and do not find the evidence compelling.
And (btw) you are making the assertions, so the burden of proof is on you.
I think it's totally fine to say that you didn't find the evidence compelling. Everyone is entitle to their own conclusions. But, I just take issue with those that say there is no evidence. That's just not true.
And as cws already said, I'm not really here to endlessly prove things to those that aren't open to it. I'm here to exchange ideas and hopefully learn. This prove-it mentality is just really tiring, and detracts from the purpose of the boards for me. Not to mention, lends itself to a lot of unnecessary hostility and often disrespectful behavior.0 -
Does triticale count? Because that *kitten* is gross. :laugh:
Actually, I've never heard of that! But now I want to try some for a homebrew. The mouth feel of a wheat, with the spiciness of a rye...0 -
Why is it such a big deal that we try to eat like people did thousands of years ago, whose life expectancy was at best 30-40 years?
That may be the average due to high infant mortality, accident, etc. But there is actually considerable evidence that some of our ancestors lived considerably longer -- well into their 70s --- just not on average for other reasons.
But I don't remember where I read that, so I can't cite the book/study.
Oh good lord. yes, there were a few outliers who lived that long, but the majority of the population did not. As recently as the early 1900s, people lived mostly to only around 50 years of age on average. Especially those of European descent. Primarily due to poor hygiene and dental health. So I'll keep eating today's foods and brushing my teeth and whatnot, and those who choose to can go back to living it up caveman style.
because of agriculture!!!!
indigenous people living in indonesia for example have great teeth and they have "poor" hygene and no toothbrushes!0 -
Why is it such a big deal that we try to eat like people did thousands of years ago, whose life expectancy was at best 30-40 years?
That may be the average due to high infant mortality, accident, etc. But there is actually considerable evidence that some of our ancestors lived considerably longer -- well into their 70s --- just not on average for other reasons.
But I don't remember where I read that, so I can't cite the book/study.
Oh good lord. yes, there were a few outliers who lived that long, but the majority of the population did not. As recently as the early 1900s, people lived mostly to only around 50 years of age on average. Especially those of European descent. Primarily due to poor hygiene and dental health. So I'll keep eating today's foods and brushing my teeth and whatnot, and those who choose to can go back to living it up caveman style.
I think we're all for clean water, modern medicine, dental hygiene, etc., just not for some of the more recent dietary changes. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.0 -
Look on Dr. Oz.com. One of the shows either on Thursday or Friday of last week explained the true paleo diet and what type of eater must follow the two types of diet. Also they showed the foods that constitute each diet.
Hope this helps.
Linda1163zz990 -
Apparently, it's your responsibility to prove their assertions.
No joke.
Her: There's no science behind the claims.
Me: Yes, there is.
Her: Oh, yeah, where?
Me: Here.
Her: You expect me to actually read this?
Me: Yes, I do. I thought that was the whole point in asking for them.
You referenced books that have a bias, agenda, and incentive--to sell books. Of course it's going to be slanted. As for the studies in those books, well, I wish I knew what they were. But you didn't reference them.
Yeah, I'm not going to do all the work for you. You know where to look, if you want to. Talk about intellectually lazy people.
Of course, they have a bias -- any compilation does, regardless of whether they try to reduce it or not. You just asked for studies. There they are.
No. You see, this is a study:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/508S.abstract0 -
Apparently, it's your responsibility to prove their assertions.it's not any of our responsibility to provide proof for anything. this is a message board. it's an exchange of ideas. if anyone sees an idea they find intriguing they can research it all they want and decide what to think for themselves. This whole "prove it" mentality where anyone who makes a claim has to spend an hour pouring through websites to find the articles and studies they didn't think to bookmark when reading, JUST so that people won't flame them for posting an opinion is... just silly. lol
Except when people try to pass opinion off as fact.
Then it becomes just fear mongering.
But you already know that.0 -
Look on Dr. Oz.com. One of the shows either on Thursday or Friday of last week explained the true paleo diet and what type of eater must follow the two types of diet. Also they showed the foods that constitute each diet.
Hope this helps.
Linda1163zz99
Please don't ever advise anyone to check out anything from Dr. Quack Oz. he's a charlatan and promotes any product he's paid to promote.0 -
Apparently, it's your responsibility to prove their assertions.it's not any of our responsibility to provide proof for anything. this is a message board. it's an exchange of ideas. if anyone sees an idea they find intriguing they can research it all they want and decide what to think for themselves. This whole "prove it" mentality where anyone who makes a claim has to spend an hour pouring through websites to find the articles and studies they didn't think to bookmark when reading, JUST so that people won't flame them for posting an opinion is... just silly. lol
Except when people try to pass opinion off as fact.
Then it becomes just fear mongering.
But you already know that.
you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means.0 -
Look on Dr. Oz.com. One of the shows either on Thursday or Friday of last week explained the true paleo diet and what type of eater must follow the two types of diet. Also they showed the foods that constitute each diet.
Hope this helps.
Linda1163zz99
Oh lawzy... :noway:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions