We don't know what constitutes a true paleo diet!
Replies
-
thank you everyone for the lovely debate, I'm going to bed now :flowerforyou:
please (not part of this debate, just for general knowledge) read up about the lives of palaeolithic people and human evolution in general... it's a fascinating subject and is the story of our own origins.... it's truly fascinating, and forget paleo diet arguments, just study it because it teaches you what it really means to be human and where we came from and our place in nature.... really. you wouldn't want to go through your whole life believing that a stork left you on your parents doorstep... our origins and how we got here matters, and it's not taught in schools because people don't want to upset the creationists. But it's your heritage.0 -
thank you everyone for the lovely debate, I'm going to bed now :flowerforyou:
please (not part of this debate, just for general knowledge) read up about the lives of palaeolithic people and human evolution in general... it's a fascinating subject and is the story of our own origins.... it's truly fascinating, and forget paleo diet arguments, just study it because it teaches you what it really means to be human and where we came from and our place in nature.... really. you wouldn't want to go through your whole life believing that a stork left you on your parents doorstep... our origins and how we got here matters, and it's not taught in schools because people don't want to upset the creationists. But it's your heritage.
I took a class on human evolution in college. I agree - fascinating.0 -
Yes absolutely the ability to gain fat to survive famines is something that was adaptive until very recently... but this didn't evolve in the past few thousand years... it's a trait shared by all animals that store fat. But fat is stored when people (or other animals) eat more food than they burn off. There's nothing special about grains that makes people store more fat. Grains don't make people fat. Eating more than you burn off makes people fat.
Hmmm...seems like there are a lot of fat herbivores out there, especially those that are fed grains...like cows. And yet I see very few fat carnivores...very few overweight tigers, lions, etc.
And how do you account for issues like insulin resistance, where eating carbs, especially processed grains, results in much quicker weight gain and fat storage?0 -
Generations generally refers to when one reaches breeding age. Even if we take a conservative 20 years old for a human (I'd guess it would have been much younger back in caveman times?) that is 500 generations, not 142. Old people (especially women) tend not to breed as much.
And is there any evidence that increased processed wheat consumption leads to insulin resistance? As far as I am aware, we really don't know what causes insulin resistance. I've heard sugar blamed too, but the link appears mainly correlatory to me, not causal.
Fair points. I don't think they know what it causing insulin resistance either, but they are seeing high corollaries as you state. One of the suggested treatments for it is a low carb diet (with elimination of processed grains) to facilitate weight loss, and sometimes, that helps to reverse the insulin resistance.
Just as an aside really, but there is also a paper that shows a diet of 75% carbs can reverse the signs of pre-diabetes as well. I personally manage mine with moderate carbs, spread out throughout the day, and exercise.
Do you know the paper showing that? I'd love to read it. Is it extreme calorie restriction even with 75% carbs?0 -
Generations generally refers to when one reaches breeding age. Even if we take a conservative 20 years old for a human (I'd guess it would have been much younger back in caveman times?) that is 500 generations, not 142. Old people (especially women) tend not to breed as much.
And is there any evidence that increased processed wheat consumption leads to insulin resistance? As far as I am aware, we really don't know what causes insulin resistance. I've heard sugar blamed too, but the link appears mainly correlatory to me, not causal.
Fair points. I don't think they know what it causing insulin resistance either, but they are seeing high corollaries as you state. One of the suggested treatments for it is a low carb diet (with elimination of processed grains) to facilitate weight loss, and sometimes, that helps to reverse the insulin resistance.
Just as an aside really, but there is also a paper that shows a diet of 75% carbs can reverse the signs of pre-diabetes as well. I personally manage mine with moderate carbs, spread out throughout the day, and exercise.
Do you know the paper showing that? I'd love to read it. Is it extreme calorie restriction even with 75% carbs?
I'll have to look it up again. Remember reading it a year or more ago. I'm about to leave for the day though, so it may be tomorrow before I find it.0 -
Yes absolutely the ability to gain fat to survive famines is something that was adaptive until very recently... but this didn't evolve in the past few thousand years... it's a trait shared by all animals that store fat. But fat is stored when people (or other animals) eat more food than they burn off. There's nothing special about grains that makes people store more fat. Grains don't make people fat. Eating more than you burn off makes people fat.
Hmmm...seems like there are a lot of fat herbivores out there, especially those that are fed grains...like cows. And yet I see very few fat carnivores...very few overweight tigers, lions, etc.
And how do you account for issues like insulin resistance, where eating carbs, especially processed grains, results in much quicker weight gain and fat storage?
Animals that freely breed in an environment typically increase their population until they are 80% of their free feeding body weight (hungry, but not too hungry to breed). Unless their population is controlled by something like predation.
Also, it depends on the environmental factors they encounter. Anything that lives in cold climates or has a migratory pattern tends to bulk up. Buffalo migrated, which is why they got fat in the fall.
You see the same pattern in carnivores that get fat. Bears. Penguins. Sea going mammals, Crocodiles. Well, Crocodiles only because they are bad-*kitten*.0 -
What the article from the OP fails to mention --- or rather, just skips over willy nilly --- is that humans evolved to eat anything edible. Some societies had to go to great lengths to make certain things edible. But they ate whatever they could, whenever they could. In short, we evolved to be omnivores.
From the article:Let’s say that natural selection adapts an organism to a given environment by selecting for an advantageous trait. What if the environment shifts, as they do, and the trait the original environment selected no longer works the same way? This is an evolutionary mismatch. It can happen with any environmental shift, like a change in diet.
Yes, this is correct in a strict sense. Things like diet can wreak havoc on a population. Look at Pandas or Polar bears. Highly specialized creatures whose habitats and food sources are being threatened, leaving them close to extinction. But we aren't like that. Our greatest specialization is our adaptability. Look at all the food sources we can gain nutrients from; at all the humans who live in extreme climates who eat wildly different foods to others in different extreme climates. Yet both groups manage to survive.
Its this basic misapplication of evolutionary science to try and support this flawed premise that I find most irritating. And this general tenant - we didn't evolve to eat X - that underlies the whole paleo thing. Take away the pseudoscience and you are left with just another fad diet.
So, just want to make sure I understand, you're irritated with the diet because of its incorrect labeling premise? Do you have anything to comment on as to the diet itself?
Maybe, it's just me, but rhetoric bores me.
If you want my opinion on the diet itself, it's unnecessarily restrictive. Nothing wrong with avoiding foods that are actually making you ill, but a lot of people doing paleo are not made ill by those foods and avoiding them has no health benefit for them, but they're scared into avoiding them by people who tell them "cavemen" didn't eat them, even though the people telling them have no idea about anything in palaeoanthropology, never mind what foods cavepeople ate .................. the result is you have people avoiding foods under the mistaken belief that those foods are bad for them, because they've been told palaeolithic people didn't eat them by people who don't have the first idea what palaeolithic people actually ate............................ you don't see a problem there??
If on this diet you no longer crave nutrient deficit food, what's restrictive about it. Name one food that I cannot eat which provides the same or if not more nutrients that I cannot get from food which is recommended on the diet?
that's beside the point, because there's no *benefit* to cutting out those foods. You can name *any* food that humans eat, and replace it with other foods that contain the same nutrients. That's what vegans do. they omit meat and find other foods that contain the same nutrients. Does that mean that everyone should give up meat? Just because you *can* get all your nutrition from non-meat sources?
The question needs to be "what are the health benefits in giving up this food?" - if the answer to that question is "none" then there's no reason to give it up, even if you could get the same nutrients from other foods.
If you personally don't crave non paleo foods when eating paleo, then good for you. Your experience isn't shared by everyone. If someone is craving non-paleo foods, and there's no health benefit in them avoiding those foods (i.e. they don't have an actual intolerance to them) then what on earth is the benefit of them stoically avoiding them when they could eat them and still be just as healthy, or possibly even slightly better health, as they'd avoid the stress caused to them by avoiding foods that they're craving. This stress is worth if if the food really is making you ill, but if it's not.... well it's a hiding to nothing...
So you can't answer my question. A simple no would have spared you keyboard the wrath of your angry fingers.
Another question, I'm wanting to get the most from the calories I consume, so why would I want to eat grains and sugars when anywhere between 10- 20% of the calories are lost post digestion and are not staying in my body for fuel?
Because fiber is good for you?
So you don't get fibre from vegetables which are higher in nutritional value?
Do you fancy a second go of answering the question?
Which calories are lost, if it's not the fiber? If you are complaining about losing the calories from fiber, why aren't the fiber calories lost from vegetables as big a problem?0 -
Seriously I don't mean this to sound rude because it's not.
You will probably gets better understanding of it by researching it yourself. A good place to start would be body recomposition (look under energy balance equation).
Then just follow the evidence from there.
Happy reading.????0 -
Seriously I don't mean this to sound rude because it's not.
You will probably gets better understanding of it by researching it yourself. A good place to start would be body recomposition (look under energy balance equation).
Then just follow the evidence from there.
Happy reading.????
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
High-fiber diets tend to have this effect generally, as soluble fiber binds a small amount of protein and fat in the stomach carrying it out without digestion. So if you jack up soluble fiber intake, you end up absorbing less of the calories that went into your mouth; more are lost in your poop.
**Note. This doesn't say "high fiber from grain." It says "high fiber."
And Yay! The mayo clinic says that dietary fiber is a good and essential part of a balanced diet.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/fiber/art-20043983
Edited to add that the mayo clinic specifically mentions soluble fiber is found in oats, beans, apples, citrus fruits, carrots, and barley so I'm still confused about why fruit/veggie fiber is good and grain/legume fiber is bad.0 -
Sorry - could not resist.
Carry on.0 -
Seriously I don't mean this to sound rude because it's not.
You will probably gets better understanding of it by researching it yourself. A good place to start would be body recomposition (look under energy balance equation).
Then just follow the evidence from there.
Happy reading.????
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
High-fiber diets tend to have this effect generally, as soluble fiber binds a small amount of protein and fat in the stomach carrying it out without digestion. So if you jack up soluble fiber intake, you end up absorbing less of the calories that went into your mouth; more are lost in your poop.
**Note. This doesn't say "high fiber from grain." It says "high fiber."
And Yay! The mayo clinic says that dietary fiber is a good and essential part of a balanced diet.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/fiber/art-20043983
Edited to add that the mayo clinic specifically mentions soluble fiber is found in oats, beans, apples, citrus fruits, carrots, and barley so I'm still confused about why fruit/veggie fiber is good and grain/legume fiber is bad.
Well if that's what you got from the report then good for you.
Clearly what you are doing works for you - so more power to your el ow????0 -
I still have yet to meet a paleo fanatic that drinks untreated river/stream/creek etc. water. If they can do it for a month without getting any illness or bacteria issues, I may convert.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Seriously I don't mean this to sound rude because it's not.
You will probably gets better understanding of it by researching it yourself. A good place to start would be body recomposition (look under energy balance equation).
Then just follow the evidence from there.
Happy reading.????
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
High-fiber diets tend to have this effect generally, as soluble fiber binds a small amount of protein and fat in the stomach carrying it out without digestion. So if you jack up soluble fiber intake, you end up absorbing less of the calories that went into your mouth; more are lost in your poop.
**Note. This doesn't say "high fiber from grain." It says "high fiber."
And Yay! The mayo clinic says that dietary fiber is a good and essential part of a balanced diet.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/fiber/art-20043983
Edited to add that the mayo clinic specifically mentions soluble fiber is found in oats, beans, apples, citrus fruits, carrots, and barley so I'm still confused about why fruit/veggie fiber is good and grain/legume fiber is bad.
Well if that's what you got from the report then good for you.
Clearly what you are doing works for you - so more power to your el ow????
Well, one thing: if soluble fiber absorbs protein and fat, and I have a cup of oatmeal and a half grapefruit in the morning, how much more bacon can I eat?0 -
I still have yet to meet a paleo fanatic that drinks untreated river/stream/creek etc. water. If they can do it for a month without getting any illness or bacteria issues, I may convert.
Huh...is that part of the Paleo/Primal diet? I'd never heard of that before...0 -
Well, one thing: if soluble fiber absorbs protein and fat, and I have a cup of oatmeal and a half grapefruit in the morning, how much more bacon can I eat?
If you're Paleo/Primal, you can eat as much bacon as you'd like (though aim for the ones with no nitrates/nitrites)! Though minimal/no oatmeal. Choices, choices.0 -
Yes.Very tenuous, all proven science started as belief or theory.
The word you are looking for here is hypothesis. You may believe your hypothesis is correct, but you won't know until you test it. Get enough experimental data together so it forms a cohesive picture, and then you have a theory.
But there's that damn semantics again!
Sure, and if we were writing a paper on it in a scientific forum, it would be appropriate. But do you think the average joe on this site (or in America at large) really needs to know the difference between hypothesis and theory?
If you respect your reader you will show them the differences efficiently, and take a step in educating them, hopefully bringing us a bit back from the brink of idiocracy we're sliding into.Really?0 -
Well, one thing: if soluble fiber absorbs protein and fat, and I have a cup of oatmeal and a half grapefruit in the morning, how much more bacon can I eat?
If you're Paleo/Primal, you can eat as much bacon as you'd like (though aim for the ones with no nitrates/nitrites)! Though minimal/no oatmeal. Choices, choices.
Well, you could only eat as much as you liked if you weren't worried about gaining weight...0 -
Well, one thing: if soluble fiber absorbs protein and fat, and I have a cup of oatmeal and a half grapefruit in the morning, how much more bacon can I eat?
If you're Paleo/Primal, you can eat as much bacon as you'd like (though aim for the ones with no nitrates/nitrites)! Though minimal/no oatmeal. Choices, choices.
Why is the soluble fiber in the grapefruit better for me than the fiber in the oatmeal?0 -
If you're Paleo/Primal, you can eat as much bacon as you'd like...
Only if you want to get fat.
Bacon is calorically-dense, eating tons of it is a great way to gain weight.0 -
Honestly, I'm looking forward to the day when marketers begin labeling their packaging as "paleo/primal" like they did with organic and gluten-free.
I will laugh and laugh... :laugh:
why so bitter about the world? what'd paleo/primal eaters ever do to you? sounds like they kidnapped your parents or something the way you talk about them. lol
live and let live babycakes.
Since when did laughter equate to bitterness? It sounds like someone kidnapped your sense of humor.
I laugh when I see "organic" labels, and if they start labeling pre-packaged foods as "primal" or "paleo," that would be even more hilarious. Find a sense of humor and use it.
if your sense of humor is laughing at organic labels yours could use an adjustment. lulz.
I was laughing at the thought of a processed/packaged product being lableled as paleo/primal and the irony of that concept.
I was not laughing at organic labels. But the reality is that most products labeled as organic are not actually organic.0 -
Honestly, I'm looking forward to the day when marketers begin labeling their packaging as "paleo/primal" like they did with organic and gluten-free.
I will laugh and laugh... :laugh:
why so bitter about the world? what'd paleo/primal eaters ever do to you? sounds like they kidnapped your parents or something the way you talk about them. lol
live and let live babycakes.
What exactly did I say about paleo/primal eaters that gave you the impression I feel bitterness towards them?
I implied that they fall by way of the mindless sheep that believe everything marketers claim and declare. But most of the general public does...
I sure hope you've never tried Activia yogurt - or Cheerios for that matter.
Can't say I've ever tried Activia, but of course, I've had Cheerios. However, I can absolutely guarantee that I did not consume for the sake of its "heart health" claims, but because its a popular brand of cereal that has been around longer than I've been alive.0 -
Reasons to avoid paleo:
peanuts, roasted/salted
peanut butter
chocolate-covered peanuts
trail mix
sugar
milk
cheese
yogurt
sour cream
russet potatoes
wheat bread
white bread
Italian bread
French bread
croutons
biscuits
white rice
spaghetti
linguine
lasagna
macaroni & cheese
macaroni salads
fruit salads made with Cool Chip
candy/candy bars
cookies
cake
brownies
cream cheese
cheesecake
white chocolate caramel "cappuccino" that magically pours into the cup when you push the button
muffins
pancakes
waffles
crepes
whipped cream
chocolate chips
seedless watermelon
maraschino cherries
Jonathan apples
red delicious apples
granny smith apples
any other hybrid fruit (or veggie)
...and that's just off the top of my head.
And on maintenance, I've eaten every item on this list in the past year with no ill effects.0 -
True "paleo" diet?
Hmm.
Well, how about the Iceman- 5,000 years old?
His stomach was stuffed with fatty goat meat. Some extra stuff too, but mainly goat meat.
he was chalcolithic, not palaeolithic. and the neolithic came before the chalcolithic
Are their actual stomach contents to be analyzed from people older than 5,000 old?
I didn't think so.
What we find in the iceman is REAL science, not speculation put together by diet "gurus."
Cro-Magnon man only goes back about 25,000 years.
The paleo diet is not based on any science, as I've been saying through this thread.
I don't do paleo dieting.
However:
Cro-Magnons (if you mean the first Homo sapiens sapiens people in Europe, it's not a scientific term, but that's who it's usually used to refer to) date back to about 40,000 years ago. Homo sapiens sapiens, our subspecies (some use the term Cro-Magnon to refer to our entire subspecies) dates back 100,000 years ago.
Homo sapiens idaltu dates back to about 160,000 years ago. They ate hippos.
As for analysis of the diets of people who lived earlier than Otzi, there is a lot of sources for this: 1. the bones found associated with palaeolithic people, e.g. animal bones with cut marks on them from stone tools. This is evidence as to which species of animals they ate. (this is how we know Homo sapiens idaltu ate hippos, and scientists have a very good idea what species of animals were eaten by which species of humans and whether they were hunted or scavenged) - only humans can make stone tools therefore stone tool marks on bones = humans ate this. 2. there is a lot of recent research looking at microscopic food particles from teeth, this, for example, has told scientists that neanderthals not only ate various different plants, but that they cooked them too. 3. analysis of the molecular structure of bones and teeth tells scientists about the diet as well, such as whether the protein they ate came from meat, fish or plants.
The above is real science and can be found in various journals of palaeoanthropology such as the Journal of Human Evolution
None of it resemble the diet of paleo gurus though. I agree with you that the paleo diet isn't based on science... .I'm trying to improve people's general knowledge of palaeoanthropology.0 -
True "paleo" diet?
Hmm.
Well, how about the Iceman- 5,000 years old?
His stomach was stuffed with fatty goat meat. Some extra stuff too, but mainly goat meat.
he was chalcolithic, not palaeolithic. and the neolithic came before the chalcolithic
Are their actual stomach contents to be analyzed from people older than 5,000 old?
I didn't think so.
What we find in the iceman is REAL science, not speculation put together by diet "gurus."
Cro-Magnon man only goes back about 25,000 years.
The paleo diet is not based on any science, as I've been saying through this thread.
it may not be based on accurate evolutionary science but the nutritional science is sound.0 -
I agree!thank you everyone for the lovely debate, I'm going to bed now :flowerforyou:
please (not part of this debate, just for general knowledge) read up about the lives of palaeolithic people and human evolution in general... it's a fascinating subject and is the story of our own origins.... it's truly fascinating, and forget paleo diet arguments, just study it because it teaches you what it really means to be human and where we came from and our place in nature.... really. you wouldn't want to go through your whole life believing that a stork left you on your parents doorstep... our origins and how we got here matters, and it's not taught in schools because people don't want to upset the creationists. But it's your heritage.
It's taught in my university and I teach it. I upset a few but I hope I also open their eyes just a little.0 -
I agree!thank you everyone for the lovely debate, I'm going to bed now :flowerforyou:
please (not part of this debate, just for general knowledge) read up about the lives of palaeolithic people and human evolution in general... it's a fascinating subject and is the story of our own origins.... it's truly fascinating, and forget paleo diet arguments, just study it because it teaches you what it really means to be human and where we came from and our place in nature.... really. you wouldn't want to go through your whole life believing that a stork left you on your parents doorstep... our origins and how we got here matters, and it's not taught in schools because people don't want to upset the creationists. But it's your heritage.
It's taught in my university and I teach it. I upset a few but I hope I also open their eyes just a little.
I feel really sad that people get upset when you teach it.... but it's such a fascinating subject, and it's depressing how little most people know about it. Keep on teaching :flowerforyou:0 -
it may not be based on accurate evolutionary science but the nutritional science is sound.
that point is debatable i.e. whether it's based on sound nutritional science. It's not the worst diet ever, as in it's not going to cause anyone to get nutritional deficiencies. But it eliminated a lot of foods for unsound reasons and faulty logic (e.g. some people can't digest gluten/lactose therefore it's bad for everyone).
but what baffles me is why people are so vehement in their defence of a diet that's claims to be based on evolutionary biology but isn't............. i mean you could all eat the same foods without calling yourselves "paleo dieters"0 -
I still have yet to meet a paleo fanatic that drinks untreated river/stream/creek etc. water. If they can do it for a month without getting any illness or bacteria issues, I may convert.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I bet if we DID drink water that was tainted a bit, the occasional bouts of colon-cleansing diarrhea would lower the rate of colon cancer markedly, as well as boost our immune systems.
Of course, some people would die, but that's natures way- weeding out the weak. Not MY way, but nature's way.
Burger King onion rings do the same thing, just more violently.0 -
it may not be based on accurate evolutionary science but the nutritional science is sound.
that point is debatable i.e. whether it's based on sound nutritional science. It's not the worst diet ever, as in it's not going to cause anyone to get nutritional deficiencies. But it eliminated a lot of foods for unsound reasons and faulty logic (e.g. some people can't digest gluten/lactose therefore it's bad for everyone).
but what baffles me is why people are so vehement in their defence of a diet that's claims to be based on evolutionary biology but isn't............. i mean you could all eat the same foods without calling yourselves "paleo dieters"
I agree. I find it annoying, too.0 -
Did Steve0 just tell Dame Piglet to get a new stylist?
:huh:
Ok, maybe not.....
Perhaps I'm very suspicious when males comment on women's appearance on the net.....:laugh: :noway: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