Paleo vs. Clean eating?

lindsey1979

Can you show me the reasonable basis for avoidance of lectins because there is some pretty good evidence of several benefits of dietary plant lectins.

Anti-tumour properties http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24033443 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21329660

Enhanced immune response http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8082415

Antiviral and antifungal activity (from kidney bean lectin) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11732688

I just quoted my own post. Is that bad? :blushing:

Anyway, Paleo/Primal sites and books are forever banging on about the danger of lectins and the need to avoid legumes but clearly a lot of this is cherry picked nonsense. If you do a bit of research excluding sites that promote the standard paleo/primal propaganda about lectins, you will see that they can be beneficial, and that other dietary components modulate their effect. The science behind restrictive diets like these is often faulty and although it doesn't matter to me what people eat, I don't like the way the proponents con people with pseudoscience.

I think there are arguments on both sides, but that doesn't negate the existence of the negative information or some people's choices to forgo them for those reasons (and perhaps their body's responses to them that they observed).

I personally don't care about legumes as I generally don't want to eat them anyway. So the fact that they're restricted or discouraged in Paleo/Primal is no skin off my nose because I'm not going to eat most of them anyway (with the exception of peanuts -- I do like peanuts -- but I also like almonds, cashews and macadamias just as much, if not more -- I just wish they were cheaper).

Charlottesometimes23

I guess I just see a lot of these issues as useless judging. Not the type of judging relative to moral issues, which I think is valuable, but the useless judging as to lifestyle preferences. The type from people that serves no purpose other than to be divisive. I don't see it as respectful, nor helpful, and oftentimes just downright emotionally dishonest (i.e. not from a place of honest desire to help, but out of misplaced self-righteousness and occasionally downright bullying by small, petty people). You're free to do it, of course, but I just disagree with it and see no value in it. But, I guess if it makes you feel better, there's at least that.

I have been open that my interest is less about the specific diet and more so about the belief that gets argued that semantics don't matter.

You mentioned being some form of a scientist. You know why it matters. It matters for the same reason that research uses control groups, tries to assess variables, has very strict guidelines to meet to prove causation and not correlation, and is expected to be peer reviewed and challenged and able to be re-proven.

I would agree with you 100% if this was a Paleo group. I won't take my curiosity about this 80/20 business and semantics there because it's uninvited, unwanted, unwarranted. But everyone here has the right to ask questions or even issue challenges when it's talked about in the general area.

You can't complain about people criticizing or questioning something because it's just "a lifestyle" while simultaneously promoting the benefits, to the point of telling people they should try it to see if they have health issues they don't know about. I don't care about really anyone's lifestyle, until it hurts someone or they start telling others to try it. Once they do that, they've invited questions and essentially, requests for evidence. Like I know you would want if I made negative statements about Paleo.

I'm not attacking you or upset by this. We obviously disagree, but that's part of discussion. Know that I agree that people (on either side) should not be belittling, and I agree that people who want to argue the Paleo diets should stay out of those groups. But as long as you stay here and keep talking to me, I'm going to respond when I see it. This discussion is really interesting to me, and it must be to you, because you stick around, too.

I'm all for respectful disagreement, and I completely appreciate your response. Thank you for the courtesy and consideration. Just for the record, I don't consider myself a scientist (as I don't actively do research or otherwise applicable activity), but I do have a biology degree from a top research university, as much as that is mocked by french models on this board.

I agree that semantics matter in certain contexts, I just don't believe it really matters in the context of most of the arguments against Paleo/Primal I've seen on this website. If we're talking scientific studies, absolutely. Legal documents, absolutely. Precision and accuracy are absolutely important in those contexts.

Whether someone adheres to their professed diet 100% is not important in such a context. Whether the label behind the diet is 100% anthropologically correct is also besides the point. The diet is based on nutritional science, not anthropological science (notwithstanding the fact that I bet there were some paleolithic people in certain areas of the world that ate very similarly to the foods outlined in the diet -- not all, but some).

That's the issue for me. It's NOT based on nutritional science. In fact, from what I can see, it's based on some pretty dodgy hypotheses. "Nutritional science" rarely advocates restriction of food groups to the degree of paleo/primal, so please don't say that it is based on nutrition science as if it's a somehow superior way to eat.

FlaxMilk

In the end, I guess I just don't understand the irrational hostility towards Paleo/Primal I see here or the fact that some people feel the need to police it even though they aren't a member themselves (i.e. not Paleo/Primal). There are plenty of things in this world that I don't agree with or subscribe to, but I don't waste my time and energy going out of my way to tell those people that I think their life choices are ridiculous, absurd, not worth it, etc. What's the point of that?

I don't disagree with much of what you said. I will say that there are tons of other lifestyles that get the same treatment on MFP: it's why in most vegan threads, you see someone post a link to a group. The keto threads get attention. The avoid trigger foods gets derision. The clean eating is 2013's answer to 2014's Paleo. People who are 5'0 and eat 1200 are told that they will be in starvation mode right now. Shakeology is almost universally banded against. And I personally disagree with those that answer everyone with "Eat in moderation or you'll binge" because some will overeat trigger foods every time, not just when restricted from them, and the interruption in goal progress is very discouraging. Moderation is the right choice for the right people at the right time. Not everyone is able to be there at the moment and should be able to determine that for themselves.

I personally don't think anyone (or at least most) is trying to police individual people. I think they are challenging the 80/20 concept as a built in amendment to the diet. People caving to a craving is different than building the deviations in. Why people care is probably individual. Do you think there's a difference between saying, "Ooops, I didn't eat Paleo today, moment of weakness" or "I ate Paleo today, I had meat and cheese and potatoes and lentils and peanut butter?"

FlaxMilk

To clarify, my reason for being interested in what people who eat a different diet do is that I'm interested in why both individuals and groups work the way they do. Maybe our lack of understanding each other here comes down to a mismatch in interests. I don't find most of the discussions here on hormones all that interesting (I do the first time I learn it, then I'm out), but different lifestyles? Love it.

geebusuk

In the end, I guess I just don't understand the irrational hostility towards Paleo/Primal I see here or the fact that some people feel the need to police it even though they aren't a member themselves (i.e. not Paleo/Primal). There are plenty of things in this world that I don't agree with or subscribe to, but I don't waste my time and energy going out of my way to tell those people that I think their life choices are ridiculous, absurd, not worth it, etc. What's the point of that?

The point would be that it helps inform and educate OTHER people in to understanding the choices they are made.

If you just listened to the people that are "a member of the club", you're more likely to get a biased opinion. And that's where a public discussion is useful - people with differing views can explain their positions.

Often proponents of paelo explain "it's how we evolved to eat" as a big reason why we should follow this diet. This is obviously (I hope) pretty nonsensical when you look in to it,

lindsey1979

I guess I just see a lot of these issues as useless judging. Not the type of judging relative to moral issues, which I think is valuable, but the useless judging as to lifestyle preferences. The type from people that serves no purpose other than to be divisive. I don't see it as respectful, nor helpful, and oftentimes just downright emotionally dishonest (i.e. not from a place of honest desire to help, but out of misplaced self-righteousness and occasionally downright bullying by small, petty people). You're free to do it, of course, but I just disagree with it and see no value in it. But, I guess if it makes you feel better, there's at least that.

I have been open that my interest is less about the specific diet and more so about the belief that gets argued that semantics don't matter.

You mentioned being some form of a scientist. You know why it matters. It matters for the same reason that research uses control groups, tries to assess variables, has very strict guidelines to meet to prove causation and not correlation, and is expected to be peer reviewed and challenged and able to be re-proven.

I would agree with you 100% if this was a Paleo group. I won't take my curiosity about this 80/20 business and semantics there because it's uninvited, unwanted, unwarranted. But everyone here has the right to ask questions or even issue challenges when it's talked about in the general area.

You can't complain about people criticizing or questioning something because it's just "a lifestyle" while simultaneously promoting the benefits, to the point of telling people they should try it to see if they have health issues they don't know about. I don't care about really anyone's lifestyle, until it hurts someone or they start telling others to try it. Once they do that, they've invited questions and essentially, requests for evidence. Like I know you would want if I made negative statements about Paleo.

I'm not attacking you or upset by this. We obviously disagree, but that's part of discussion. Know that I agree that people (on either side) should not be belittling, and I agree that people who want to argue the Paleo diets should stay out of those groups. But as long as you stay here and keep talking to me, I'm going to respond when I see it. This discussion is really interesting to me, and it must be to you, because you stick around, too.

I'm all for respectful disagreement, and I completely appreciate your response. Thank you for the courtesy and consideration. Just for the record, I don't consider myself a scientist (as I don't actively do research or otherwise applicable activity), but I do have a biology degree from a top research university, as much as that is mocked by french models on this board.

I agree that semantics matter in certain contexts, I just don't believe it really matters in the context of most of the arguments against Paleo/Primal I've seen on this website. If we're talking scientific studies, absolutely. Legal documents, absolutely. Precision and accuracy are absolutely important in those contexts.

Whether someone adheres to their professed diet 100% is not important in such a context. Whether the label behind the diet is 100% anthropologically correct is also besides the point. The diet is based on nutritional science, not anthropological science (notwithstanding the fact that I bet there were some paleolithic people in certain areas of the world that ate very similarly to the foods outlined in the diet -- not all, but some).

That's the issue for me. It's NOT based on nutritional science. In fact, from what I can see, it's based on some pretty dodgy hypotheses. "Nutritional science" rarely advocates restriction of food groups to the degree of paleo/primal, so please don't say that it is based on nutrition science as if it's a somehow superior way to eat.

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. There are numerous studies cited in books like Good Calories Bad Calories, Deep Nutrition, Wheat Belly, host of articles on marksdailyapple. I've read a lot of the underlying studies as well and I find a lot of the evidence out there persuasive. Not definitive, but persuasive enough for me to give it a try. You may not agree, fine.

Have you read all these books? Have you read all the articles on marksdailyapple? I think to categorize all the studies cited therein as psuedoscience is wholly inaccurate, even irresponsible.

tennisdude2004

The human body in a low carb intake can easily covert body fat into ketones for fuel, whilst it can only store a limited amount of glycogen through consuming carbs and from what the liver can produce.

Why is it nonsensical to think our bodies have not evolved to rely on burning our stored body fat as primary fuel as keystones ( even the brain operates in an optimal state on a mixture of glycogen and ketones)?

geebusuk

Care to link to some of the more 'persuasive' studies?

lindsey1979

I personally don't think anyone (or at least most) is trying to police individual people. I think they are challenging the 80/20 concept as a built in amendment to the diet. People caving to a craving is different than building the deviations in. Why people care is probably individual. Do you think there's a difference between saying, "Ooops, I didn't eat Paleo today, moment of weakness" or "I ate Paleo today, I had meat and cheese and potatoes and lentils and peanut butter?"

As for the 80/20 issue, I think that's the evolution of Paleo. All things evolve. So what was once strictly Paleo is now primal and has the 80/20 carve out, or at least allows for that. Primal also permits dairy if it agrees with you.

I see that as evolution of an idea. I don't know why that's controversial.

lindsey1979

Care to link to some of the more 'persuasive' studies?

I'm afraid I don't have them. I told you where I found them when I was researching them. I didn't keep an index, but I'm sure in some of those resources you'll find them for yourself.

judylutz

Paleo is a sensible idea but not realistic because today we face toxins everywhere in the environment. I believe that eating clean is a much better idea - pick one thing to change in your diet at a time and get used to it. Read labels - not the percentages but the list of ingredients. The fewer the better - that's clean eating. Try to get organic if you can. Toxins are the real enemy because your body cannot keep up with them - it's only defense is to surround these impurities with fat and store away from the major organs. . I am 52 and feel better now than ever in my life.

ndj1979

Care to link to some of the more 'persuasive' studies?

she already did .."marks daily apple"

I have had this same conversation with her before..

Sreneesa

OP: Trying to incorporate cleaner eating in whatever form is always a good thing, but make sure it's something that YOU can sustain long term.

Now you're just trying to disprove your first point!

Why is it "always a good thing"?
Do you have any good evidence to back your claim up?

I think too much emphasis is place on sustaining for long term. I mean today I had a Big Carl's meal with large cherry coke, medium fries, 3 ranch and lots of ketchup. I wanted a big carl.

The last few weeks or even month I eat tuna, chicken breast, carrots, eggs, and greek yogurt, strawberries, bananas, kale, and nonfat milk most days and trader joe trek mix, almonds... well pretty much everyday. Will I sustain that for life? Maybe or until I want to eat something else.

There have been days where I just ate veggies, fruits, greek yogurt, no meat. Will I sustain that for life? Probably not I just wanted to eat that for a minute.

My point is that taste changes and we are under no obligation to sustain a particular food, food group, etc for life. We have choices and can make different choices depending on our mood or objective at that particular time.

Doesn't have to be complicated folks. Really doesn't. lol

lindsey1979

Care to link to some of the more 'persuasive' studies?

she already did .."marks daily apple"

I have had this same conversation with her before..

He does a good job of gathering resources and citing studies in many of his articles. And it's free. What more can you ask for?

joybedford

I have eaten paleo since November. I started it because I have fibromyalgia and a MFP friend said paleo might help. It did within 2 weeks my neck pain which had been excruciating was completely gone so had my headaches. I also had far more energy and my workouts were amazing. I didn't lose a great deal of weight but my body fat dropped significantly. Over the last few weeks I have totally lost the plot again and my neck/wrist pain and headaches are all back with a vengeance. For some reason I am having trouble getting back on track but I will as I just don't feel great again. I also feel bloated and just fat to be honest. I love paleo I know it causes debate on MFP but for me it just works. I have come to the conclusion that no one way is right for everyone do what feels right for you.

FlaxMilk

I personally don't think anyone (or at least most) is trying to police individual people. I think they are challenging the 80/20 concept as a built in amendment to the diet. People caving to a craving is different than building the deviations in. Why people care is probably individual. Do you think there's a difference between saying, "Ooops, I didn't eat Paleo today, moment of weakness" or "I ate Paleo today, I had meat and cheese and potatoes and lentils and peanut butter?"

As for the 80/20 issue, I think that's the evolution of Paleo. All things evolve. So what was once strictly Paleo is now primal and has the 80/20 carve out, or at least allows for that. Primal also permits dairy if it agrees with you.

I see that as evolution of an idea. I don't know why that's controversial.

Well, I think for at least some of us, that's controversial because at some point words cease to mean anything, especially when different people are doing completely different things.

ndj1979

Care to link to some of the more 'persuasive' studies?

she already did .."marks daily apple"

I have had this same conversation with her before..

He does a good job of gathering resources and citing studies in many of his articles. And it's free. What more can you ask for?

because he is a shill for paleo would be my first reason ..

also, you claim to attend a "top four university for science" and you don't have access to actual studies, really?

lindsey1979

Care to link to some of the more 'persuasive' studies?

she already did .."marks daily apple"

I have had this same conversation with her before..

He does a good job of gathering resources and citing studies in many of his articles. And it's free. What more can you ask for?

because he is a shill for paleo would be my first reason ..

also, you claim to attend a "top four university for science" and you don't have access to actual studies, really?

No, I said I have a biology degree from a top research university, which last time I checked we're ranked 4 in overall biological sciences, 1 in chemistry, 1 in molecular biology and 1 evolutionary biology. I haven't attended university for many years. So, I have no longer have any access or subscriptions to scientific journals, databases or otherwise. Just google like you.

Have you read any of Mark's articles and the studies he cites for them to draw your conclusion? Or did you just decide it wasn't worth you time since you already concluded he was a shill?

Because if it was the former, it seems like the stronger argument would be, "I have read many of his pieces and find him to interpret them incorrectly."

FlaxMilk

If you want proof that it's not just Paleo, check out the Plant Strong thread in this forum. I'm only on page 2, and there's been diary challenges and bacon cakes.

lindsey1979

I personally don't think anyone (or at least most) is trying to police individual people. I think they are challenging the 80/20 concept as a built in amendment to the diet. People caving to a craving is different than building the deviations in. Why people care is probably individual. Do you think there's a difference between saying, "Ooops, I didn't eat Paleo today, moment of weakness" or "I ate Paleo today, I had meat and cheese and potatoes and lentils and peanut butter?"

As for the 80/20 issue, I think that's the evolution of Paleo. All things evolve. So what was once strictly Paleo is now primal and has the 80/20 carve out, or at least allows for that. Primal also permits dairy if it agrees with you.

I see that as evolution of an idea. I don't know why that's controversial.

Well, I think for at least some of us, that's controversial because at some point words cease to mean anything, especially when different people are doing completely different things.

Sure, if you extrapolate anything out far enough, it becomes non-sensical or useless. But an 80/20 carve out and allowances for dairy don't seem like that extreme. Shoot, they seem pretty moderate in fact. I don't think such an evolution is even close to the point where words cease to mean anything.

lindsey1979

If you want proof that it's not just Paleo, check out the Plant Strong thread in this forum. I'm only on page 2, and there's been diary challenges and bacon cakes.

I don't discount your assertion that the bullying and disrespectful discourse takes all forms, but that isn't a very good defense or rationalization in my mind for the bad behavior in the first place. It just furthers my abhorrence for the general principle and seems to be terribly unsupportive for those that supposedly do it as a twisted form of support.

likitisplit

I personally don't think anyone (or at least most) is trying to police individual people. I think they are challenging the 80/20 concept as a built in amendment to the diet. People caving to a craving is different than building the deviations in. Why people care is probably individual. Do you think there's a difference between saying, "Ooops, I didn't eat Paleo today, moment of weakness" or "I ate Paleo today, I had meat and cheese and potatoes and lentils and peanut butter?"

As for the 80/20 issue, I think that's the evolution of Paleo. All things evolve. So what was once strictly Paleo is now primal and has the 80/20 carve out, or at least allows for that. Primal also permits dairy if it agrees with you.

I see that as evolution of an idea. I don't know why that's controversial.

Well, I think for at least some of us, that's controversial because at some point words cease to mean anything, especially when different people are doing completely different things.

Also, I probably don't consume dairy as 20% of my diet. And "nightshade plants" certainly aren't 20% of my diet. Legumes aren't 20% of my diet. I'm not sure if all of it together is 20%. So, you could say I'm "primal" except for grains. And I eat a pretty average diet.

likitisplit

OP: Trying to incorporate cleaner eating in whatever form is always a good thing, but make sure it's something that YOU can sustain long term.

Now you're just trying to disprove your first point!

Why is it "always a good thing"?
Do you have any good evidence to back your claim up?

I think too much emphasis is place on sustaining for long term. I mean today I had a Big Carl's meal with large cherry coke, medium fries, 3 ranch and lots of ketchup. I wanted a big carl.

The last few weeks or even month I eat tuna, chicken breast, carrots, eggs, and greek yogurt, strawberries, bananas, kale, and nonfat milk most days and trader joe trek mix, almonds... well pretty much everyday. Will I sustain that for life? Maybe or until I want to eat something else.

There have been days where I just ate veggies, fruits, greek yogurt, no meat. Will I sustain that for life? Probably not I just wanted to eat that for a minute.

My point is that taste changes and we are under no obligation to sustain a particular food, food group, etc for life. We have choices and can make different choices depending on our mood or objective at that particular time.

Doesn't have to be complicated folks. Really doesn't. lol

That's called "If it fits your macros"

lindsey1979

I personally don't think anyone (or at least most) is trying to police individual people. I think they are challenging the 80/20 concept as a built in amendment to the diet. People caving to a craving is different than building the deviations in. Why people care is probably individual. Do you think there's a difference between saying, "Ooops, I didn't eat Paleo today, moment of weakness" or "I ate Paleo today, I had meat and cheese and potatoes and lentils and peanut butter?"

As for the 80/20 issue, I think that's the evolution of Paleo. All things evolve. So what was once strictly Paleo is now primal and has the 80/20 carve out, or at least allows for that. Primal also permits dairy if it agrees with you.

I see that as evolution of an idea. I don't know why that's controversial.

Well, I think for at least some of us, that's controversial because at some point words cease to mean anything, especially when different people are doing completely different things.

Also, I probably don't consume dairy as 20% of my diet. And "nightshade plants" certainly aren't 20% of my diet. Legumes aren't 20% of my diet. I'm not sure if all of it together is 20%. So, you could say I'm "primal" except for grains. And I eat a pretty average diet.

What is a pretty average diet? I really have no idea what means -- it seems like it could mean so, so many things.

As for the 80/20, I think the idea is to be 80% or better primal. And that removes the whole forbidden restriction/perfection issue. And I don't where you characterize yourself as primal, paleo or anything else. I'm not the diet police.

lindsey1979

OP: Trying to incorporate cleaner eating in whatever form is always a good thing, but make sure it's something that YOU can sustain long term.

Now you're just trying to disprove your first point!

Why is it "always a good thing"?
Do you have any good evidence to back your claim up?

I think too much emphasis is place on sustaining for long term. I mean today I had a Big Carl's meal with large cherry coke, medium fries, 3 ranch and lots of ketchup. I wanted a big carl.

The last few weeks or even month I eat tuna, chicken breast, carrots, eggs, and greek yogurt, strawberries, bananas, kale, and nonfat milk most days and trader joe trek mix, almonds... well pretty much everyday. Will I sustain that for life? Maybe or until I want to eat something else.

There have been days where I just ate veggies, fruits, greek yogurt, no meat. Will I sustain that for life? Probably not I just wanted to eat that for a minute.

My point is that taste changes and we are under no obligation to sustain a particular food, food group, etc for life. We have choices and can make different choices depending on our mood or objective at that particular time.

Doesn't have to be complicated folks. Really doesn't. lol

That's called "If it fits your macros"

What exactly is IIFYM? Does it have to be a certain macro number/division or just any macro number someone chooses?

Sreneesa

OP: Trying to incorporate cleaner eating in whatever form is always a good thing, but make sure it's something that YOU can sustain long term.

Now you're just trying to disprove your first point!

Why is it "always a good thing"?
Do you have any good evidence to back your claim up?

I think too much emphasis is place on sustaining for long term. I mean today I had a Big Carl's meal with large cherry coke, medium fries, 3 ranch and lots of ketchup. I wanted a big carl.

The last few weeks or even month I eat tuna, chicken breast, carrots, eggs, and greek yogurt, strawberries, bananas, kale, and nonfat milk most days and trader joe trek mix, almonds... well pretty much everyday. Will I sustain that for life? Maybe or until I want to eat something else.

There have been days where I just ate veggies, fruits, greek yogurt, no meat. Will I sustain that for life? Probably not I just wanted to eat that for a minute.

My point is that taste changes and we are under no obligation to sustain a particular food, food group, etc for life. We have choices and can make different choices depending on our mood or objective at that particular time.

Doesn't have to be complicated folks. Really doesn't. lol

That's called "If it fits your macros"

I call it "Its what I want to eat." LOL.... Although I will admit I more watch out for protein macro more than anything.

I do not put labels on stuff. I do me.

FlaxMilk

Sure, if you extrapolate anything out far enough, it becomes non-sensical or useless. But an 80/20 carve out and allowances for dairy don't seem like that extreme. Shoot, they seem pretty moderate in fact. I don't think such an evolution is even close to the point where words cease to mean anything.

That's a point we may just fundamentally disagree on. Since the 80/20 discussion, Paleo now means to me that every single day, people can be eating literally anything. And if they eat 50% non-paleo, that's still ok, because it's rude to question that. That's why it becomes meaningless. It can't be questioned, challenged, or criticized.

The evolution of Paleo to Primal including dairy makes sense. That's two different terms. (Today I learned the term "Seagan." I was befuddled for a moment, then just glad they don't call themselves vegans while eating tilapia.)

The evolution of Paleo to meat, cheese, and whatever treats you want is very close to meaningless. And plenty of people will do 80/20 of 80/20. It lacks any conviction.

FlaxMilk

If you want proof that it's not just Paleo, check out the Plant Strong thread in this forum. I'm only on page 2, and there's been diary challenges and bacon cakes.

I don't discount your assertion that the bullying and disrespectful discourse takes all forms, but that isn't a very good defense or rationalization in my mind for the bad behavior in the first place. It just furthers my abhorrence for the general principle and seems to be terribly unsupportive for those that supposedly do it as a twisted form of support.

It's not a defense or rationalization. It's a response to the several statements that this only happens to Paleo posters on MFP. Untrue.

ndj1979

Care to link to some of the more 'persuasive' studies?

she already did .."marks daily apple"

I have had this same conversation with her before..

He does a good job of gathering resources and citing studies in many of his articles. And it's free. What more can you ask for?

because he is a shill for paleo would be my first reason ..

also, you claim to attend a "top four university for science" and you don't have access to actual studies, really?

No, I said I have a biology degree from a top research university, which last time I checked we're ranked 4 in overall biological sciences, 1 in chemistry, 1 in molecular biology and 1 evolutionary biology. I haven't attended university for many years. So, I have no longer have any access or subscriptions to scientific journals, databases or otherwise. Just google like you.

Have you read any of Mark's articles and the studies he cites for them to draw your conclusion? Or did you just decide it wasn't worth you time since you already concluded he was a shill?

Because if it was the former, it seems like the stronger argument would be, "I have read many of his pieces and find him to interpret them incorrectly."

yes, I have read the site and found it over the top paleo and boring ..so did not dig in further…

and sorry, a website dedicated to paleo is not a "scholarly site"..

and why is it my job to google the research that you cannot find, to prove your point?

FlaxMilk

I really have no idea what means -- it seems like it could mean so, so many things.