"Paleo diet" - 70% fat???

labgirl3

Thank you for posting that study, jknop2. Very informative and a good summary of the current research. Obviously, there is a lot that is yet to be done. Relevant portion for those interested:

In 1 noncontrolled challenge study, 9 nonobese, sedentary, healthy volunteers consumed their usual diets for 3 days, then 3 “ramp-up” diets with increasing fiber and K+ intake for 7 days, and finally an HG-type diet of lean meat, fruits, vegetables, and nuts for 10 days, omitting cereal grains, dairy products, and legumes.64 Participants were monitored to ensure absence of weight loss. They experienced modest but significant reductions in BP with improved arterial distension; decreased insulin secretion (area under curve, AUC) in a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), with a marked reduction in insulin/glucose ratio; and 16% and 22% reductions in total serum and LDL cholesterol, respectively.64 These outcomes seem remarkable for such a short-term intervention.

More interesting still are results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In the most persuasive study to date, 29 patients with ischemic heart disease and either glucose intolerance or T2DM were randomized to 12 weeks of a “Paleolithic” diet (n = 14) based on lean meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, root vegetables, eggs, and nuts or a Mediterranean-like “Consensus” diet (n = 15) based on whole grains, low-fat dairy products, vegetables, fruits, fish, oils, and margarines.49 In OGTTs, the Paleolithic group showed a 26% reduction in AUC glucose compared to a 7% reduction in the Consensus group. There was a greater decrease in waist circumference in the Paleolithic group (−5.6 cm) than in the Consensus group (−2.9 cm), but the glucose reduction was independent of that measure.

In a second randomized crossover pilot study, the starting point was 13 patients (3 women) with T2DM who were placed on a Paleolithic diet based on lean meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, root vegetables, eggs, and nuts, and a Diabetes diet according to the American Diabetes Association guidelines65 (evenly distributed meals with increased vegetables, root vegetables, fiber, whole-grain bread and other cereal products, fruits, and berries, but decreased TF, especially cholesterol-raising SF).48 Participants were on each diet for 3 months. Compared to the Diabetes diet, the Paleolithic diet produced lower mean levels of hemoglobin A1c, triacylglycerol, diastolic BP, weight, BMI, and waist circumference, and higher mean HDL.

Although these are small studies, it is very gratifying that the era of explicit experimental study of the discordance model has begun and that initial results are consistent with our original predictions. It is especially noteworthy that 2 of the studies were randomized trials that compared the HG diet to other recommended model diets rather than to a baseline or typical Western diet. We hope and trust that this work will continue.

If you're interested in this or any other diet, I encourage you to read the research yourself, and then give it a try for a month or 2. If you feel, look, and perform better, then by all means - continue with what you're doing. If not, find a different way that works. Getting off the grains for a month or longer isn't going to kill you (despite what the ADA would have you believe), and it could help a great deal.

Of course this way of eating isn't for everyone. But I'd be willing to bet money that it would help the vast majority of those suffering from obesity and / or any autoimmune disorders, and not just due to caloric restriction. When you're eating whole "clean" foods, and no grains, your cravings for carbs vanishes, and your protein intake generally goes up. This allows you to 1) quit binging on junk, and 2) maintain or gain muscle mass. All while eating a nutrient-dense diet.

mrphil86

Thank you for posting that study, jknop2. Very informative and a good summary of the current research. Obviously, there is a lot that is yet to be done. Relevant portion for those interested:

In 1 noncontrolled challenge study, 9 nonobese, sedentary, healthy volunteers consumed their usual diets for 3 days, then 3 “ramp-up” diets with increasing fiber and K+ intake for 7 days, and finally an HG-type diet of lean meat, fruits, vegetables, and nuts for 10 days, omitting cereal grains, dairy products, and legumes.64 Participants were monitored to ensure absence of weight loss. They experienced modest but significant reductions in BP with improved arterial distension; decreased insulin secretion (area under curve, AUC) in a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), with a marked reduction in insulin/glucose ratio; and 16% and 22% reductions in total serum and LDL cholesterol, respectively.64 These outcomes seem remarkable for such a short-term intervention.

More interesting still are results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In the most persuasive study to date, 29 patients with ischemic heart disease and either glucose intolerance or T2DM were randomized to 12 weeks of a “Paleolithic” diet (n = 14) based on lean meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, root vegetables, eggs, and nuts or a Mediterranean-like “Consensus” diet (n = 15) based on whole grains, low-fat dairy products, vegetables, fruits, fish, oils, and margarines.49 In OGTTs, the Paleolithic group showed a 26% reduction in AUC glucose compared to a 7% reduction in the Consensus group. There was a greater decrease in waist circumference in the Paleolithic group (−5.6 cm) than in the Consensus group (−2.9 cm), but the glucose reduction was independent of that measure.

In a second randomized crossover pilot study, the starting point was 13 patients (3 women) with T2DM who were placed on a Paleolithic diet based on lean meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, root vegetables, eggs, and nuts, and a Diabetes diet according to the American Diabetes Association guidelines65 (evenly distributed meals with increased vegetables, root vegetables, fiber, whole-grain bread and other cereal products, fruits, and berries, but decreased TF, especially cholesterol-raising SF).48 Participants were on each diet for 3 months. Compared to the Diabetes diet, the Paleolithic diet produced lower mean levels of hemoglobin A1c, triacylglycerol, diastolic BP, weight, BMI, and waist circumference, and higher mean HDL.

Although these are small studies, it is very gratifying that the era of explicit experimental study of the discordance model has begun and that initial results are consistent with our original predictions. It is especially noteworthy that 2 of the studies were randomized trials that compared the HG diet to other recommended model diets rather than to a baseline or typical Western diet. We hope and trust that this work will continue.

If you're interested in this or any other diet, I encourage you to read the research yourself, and then give it a try for a month or 2. If you feel, look, and perform better, then by all means - continue with what you're doing. If not, find a different way that works. Getting off the grains for a month or longer isn't going to kill you (despite what the ADA would have you believe), and it could help a great deal.

Of course this way of eating isn't for everyone. But I'd be willing to bet money that it would help the vast majority of those suffering from obesity and / or any autoimmune disorders, and not just due to caloric restriction. When you're eating whole "clean" foods, and no grains, your cravings for carbs vanishes, and your protein intake generally goes up. This allows you to 1) quit binging on junk, and 2) maintain or gain muscle mass. All while eating a nutrient-dense diet.

Again, Nine people is not enough information to make any kind of conclusion. Even the last sentence you posted says "hope it will work."

My point is that there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion. I guess I have to put that out there in plain text.

freerange

Thank you for posting that study, jknop2. Very informative and a good summary of the current research. Obviously, there is a lot that is yet to be done. Relevant portion for those interested:

In 1 noncontrolled challenge study, 9 nonobese, sedentary, healthy volunteers consumed their usual diets for 3 days, then 3 “ramp-up” diets with increasing fiber and K+ intake for 7 days, and finally an HG-type diet of lean meat, fruits, vegetables, and nuts for 10 days, omitting cereal grains, dairy products, and legumes.64 Participants were monitored to ensure absence of weight loss. They experienced modest but significant reductions in BP with improved arterial distension; decreased insulin secretion (area under curve, AUC) in a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), with a marked reduction in insulin/glucose ratio; and 16% and 22% reductions in total serum and LDL cholesterol, respectively.64 These outcomes seem remarkable for such a short-term intervention.

More interesting still are results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In the most persuasive study to date, 29 patients with ischemic heart disease and either glucose intolerance or T2DM were randomized to 12 weeks of a “Paleolithic” diet (n = 14) based on lean meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, root vegetables, eggs, and nuts or a Mediterranean-like “Consensus” diet (n = 15) based on whole grains, low-fat dairy products, vegetables, fruits, fish, oils, and margarines.49 In OGTTs, the Paleolithic group showed a 26% reduction in AUC glucose compared to a 7% reduction in the Consensus group. There was a greater decrease in waist circumference in the Paleolithic group (−5.6 cm) than in the Consensus group (−2.9 cm), but the glucose reduction was independent of that measure.

In a second randomized crossover pilot study, the starting point was 13 patients (3 women) with T2DM who were placed on a Paleolithic diet based on lean meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, root vegetables, eggs, and nuts, and a Diabetes diet according to the American Diabetes Association guidelines65 (evenly distributed meals with increased vegetables, root vegetables, fiber, whole-grain bread and other cereal products, fruits, and berries, but decreased TF, especially cholesterol-raising SF).48 Participants were on each diet for 3 months. Compared to the Diabetes diet, the Paleolithic diet produced lower mean levels of hemoglobin A1c, triacylglycerol, diastolic BP, weight, BMI, and waist circumference, and higher mean HDL.

Although these are small studies, it is very gratifying that the era of explicit experimental study of the discordance model has begun and that initial results are consistent with our original predictions. It is especially noteworthy that 2 of the studies were randomized trials that compared the HG diet to other recommended model diets rather than to a baseline or typical Western diet. We hope and trust that this work will continue.

If you're interested in this or any other diet, I encourage you to read the research yourself, and then give it a try for a month or 2. If you feel, look, and perform better, then by all means - continue with what you're doing. If not, find a different way that works. Getting off the grains for a month or longer isn't going to kill you (despite what the ADA would have you believe), and it could help a great deal.

Of course this way of eating isn't for everyone. But I'd be willing to bet money that it would help the vast majority of those suffering from obesity and / or any autoimmune disorders, and not just due to caloric restriction. When you're eating whole "clean" foods, and no grains, your cravings for carbs vanishes, and your protein intake generally goes up. This allows you to 1) quit binging on junk, and 2) maintain or gain muscle mass. All while eating a nutrient-dense diet.

Well, that's just crazy talk, was this peer reviewed by 100 peers?

BR1986FB

Again, Nine people is not enough information to make any kind of conclusion. Even the last sentence you posted says "hope it will work."

My point is that there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion. I guess I have to put that out there in plain text.

Can you read? There's a BIG difference between "hope it will work" and "We hope and trust that this work will continue" which is what was posted.

labgirl3

Again, Nine people is not enough information to make any kind of conclusion. Even the last sentence you posted says "hope it will work."

My point is that there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion. I guess I have to put that out there in plain text.

Perhaps you're having difficulty understanding what you're reading. I'm not trying to be snarky here - it seems there really is a disconnect, whether it's intentional or not. First, there were 3 studies referenced in the quote: 9 people, 29 people and 15 people. There are more studies underway. Again - you don't need a science degree to understand that well-designed and controlled diet studies involving thousands of people are nearly impossible. That's not to say that any and all studies less than your magical number should be discarded. The body of evidence at this point (no matter how small) points to a Paleo diet being beneficial.

The last sentence doesn't say "hope it will work." :noway: It says, "We hope and trust that this WORK WILL CONTINUE." Translation: we hope more people will continue to conduct research on the Paleo diet.

Maybe this would be easier for you. Since it's so obvious to you that the Paleo diet is inferior to whatever it is you're preaching, I'd love to see the research to back up your claims.

mrphil86

Again, Nine people is not enough information to make any kind of conclusion. Even the last sentence you posted says "hope it will work."

My point is that there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion. I guess I have to put that out there in plain text.

Perhaps you're having difficulty understanding what you're reading. I'm not trying to be snarky here - it seems there really is a disconnect, whether it's intentional or not. First, there were 3 studies referenced in the quote: 9 people, 29 people and 15 people. There are more studies underway. Again - you don't need a science degree to understand that well-designed and controlled diet studies involving thousands of people are nearly impossible. That's not to say that any and all studies less than your magical number should be discarded. The body of evidence at this point (no matter how small) points to a Paleo diet being beneficial.

The last sentence doesn't say "hope it will work." :noway: It says, "We hope and trust that this WORK WILL CONTINUE." Translation: we hope more people will continue to conduct research on the Paleo diet.

Maybe this would be easier for you. Since it's so obvious to you that the Paleo diet is inferior to whatever it is you're preaching, I'd love to see the research to back up your claims.

Ok, my bad, I did read that wrong and I admit my mistake.

However, again, How is this enough evidence conclusion to draw that grains are bad for you? It's a debate, not an attack.

My whole point was that I wanted evidence why the food pyramid is bad and why grains are bad. Not blogs, not books, just studies. I have seen what you have provided but that's hardly anything in my opinion to show why they are bad.

cutmd

Ok, my bad, I did read that wrong and I admit my mistake.

However, again, How is this enough evidence conclusion to draw that grains are bad for you? It's a debate, not an attack.

My whole point was that I wanted evidence why the food pyramid is bad and why grains are bad. Not blogs, not books, just studies. I have seen what you have provided but that's hardly anything in my opinion to show why they are bad.

I think the food pyramid is suboptimal for some people, and grains are dangerous for some people. I doubt it will ever be true that these two entities are bad for everyone. Grains have been proven to be dangerous for those with celiac disease http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001280/ and there is some early data that they cause autoimmune disease in some people as well. When I say grains I mean gluten, the protein found in wheat and barley. I have not seen any evidence myself that rice or potatoes can be dangerous to any population (i'm sure you can be allergic, but I've never heard of it)

mrphil86

Ok, my bad, I did read that wrong and I admit my mistake.

However, again, How is this enough evidence conclusion to draw that grains are bad for you? It's a debate, not an attack.

My whole point was that I wanted evidence why the food pyramid is bad and why grains are bad. Not blogs, not books, just studies. I have seen what you have provided but that's hardly anything in my opinion to show why they are bad.

I think the food pyramid is suboptimal for some people, and grains are dangerous for some people. I doubt it will ever be true that these two entities are bad for everyone. Grains have been proven to be dangerous for those with celiac disease http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001280/ and there is some early data that they cause autoimmune disease in some people as well. When I say grains I mean gluten, the protein found in wheat and barley. I have not seen any evidence myself that rice or potatoes can be dangerous to any population (i'm sure you can be allergic, but I've never heard of it)

I'll agree with this, I know people have allergies to gluten. I very well accept this. But I also know people who are allergic to chicken, fish, nuts, and many other things. I don't think that's a reason to say those things are bad, just for some people they need to avoid it.

I agree, the food pyramid is not good for everyone. I don't follow the food pyramid exactly but my diet is based on the prinipals of it.

LaJauna

I always get suspicious when some virtually removes an entire food group....

Me too. Those vegans are suspicious....

Calidaho

[/quote]

However, I do the opposite. I hate that crap. So again, quick to judge.
[/quote]

I love Shakeology. So yummy but so expensive...sticking to Designer Whey.

cutmd

I'll agree with this, I know people have allergies to gluten. I very well accept this. But I also know people who are allergic to chicken, fish, nuts, and many other things. I don't think that's a reason to say those things are bad, just for some people they need to avoid it.

I agree, the food pyramid is not good for everyone. I don't follow the food pyramid exactly but my diet is based on the prinipals of it.

And there you go. We agree :happy:

Ms_Natalie

Hi guys,
Can you please respect the forum rules and each other. Personal remarks and insults are not acceptable here. This is a great debate, please try to keep it that way. If you are offended by anything someone says then please do not post in retaliation but report the post. Posts that were threatening to derail the topic have been removed/edited.

Thank you. :flowerforyou:
Ms_Natalie

MyFitnessPal Forum Moderator.

cutmd

Hey all, in doing some research I found out the OP was talking about Primal eating, not Paleo. Paleo limits saturated fats and primal does not, thus some of the discrepancies and confusion:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/whats-the-difference-between-primal-and-paleo/
What's interesting about this is that I have been eating more Primal than Paleo. I have NOT been watching my saturated fats (I eat brisket, etc on a regular basis) and as I explain before I am more lenient with rice and oats. This latter difference is due to the gluten factor. In terms of the saturated fat I find it hard to meet my calories just eating lean meats and I find fat satiating. Nonetheless I hit closer to 40% fat on most days, not 70.

I know we mentioned marksdailyapple.com before, but I think specific articles in it are healthy. Although I just said Paleo and primal are different they both eliminate grains, and plus since we are really arguing about primal I think we are okay bringing Mark in some more.

Here is an article on why he thinks grains are unhealthy
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-grains-are-unhealthy/

Here's an article where he acknowledges rice is not so bad unless trying to lose weight:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-rice-unhealthy/

In both of these articles, he lumps oats in with wheat because he says they contain gluten, when in reality oats only contain gluten if they are processed in the same facility. Although most oats are, there are gluten-free oats (which I eat) that I think deserve the same exception as rice.

DahnaLane

I always get suspicious when some virtually removes an entire food group....

Me too. Those vegans are suspicious....

I keep coming back to this thread for the chuckles.
:laugh:

myofibril

Grains are bad for you? Dear God, somebody tell the Japanese and quick! The amount of rice and sake they consume they will be dropping like flies any minute now.I mean never mind that UN and WHO estimate they have the longest life expectancy of any country in the world.

Oh it must be the high saturated fat and meat content they have in their diet. No, wait.

If you find happiness, success and contentment through adopting a Paelo / Primal lifestyle then more power to your arm. I doubt too many people in Asia will pay a blind bit of notice though....

cjbnc

I don't agree with the premise that grains are not part of our historical diet. If that is the case, why did we evolve molars, which are used to grind plant material so we can digest it? I do agree that overprocessed grains are a problem, and personally try to reduce or eliminate white starches from my own diet.

That said, I was reading on CNN the other day about gluten intolerance and how a surprising number of people (about 10% of the population) appear to have milder forms of gluten intolerance and therefore can benefit from a gluten-free diet. I hunted down the article link, if you care to read more about this idea.

"While celiac disease affects about 1 percent of the U.S. population, experts estimate that as many as 10 percent have a related and poorly understood condition known as non-celiac gluten intolerance (NCGI), or gluten sensitivity."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/04/12/gluten.free.diet.improve/index.html

LaJauna

Grains are bad for you? Dear God, somebody tell the Japanese and quick! The amount of rice and sake they consume they will be dropping like flies any minute now.I mean never mind that UN and WHO estimate they have the longest life expectancy of any country in the world.

Oh it must be the high saturated fat and meat content they have in their diet. No, wait.

If you find happiness, success and contentment through adopting a Paelo / Primal lifestyle then more power to your arm. I doubt too many people in Asia will pay a blind bit of notice though....

In the absence of sugar in their diet the rice they live on doesn't seem to cause the same problems that our wheat consumption causes. It might be that the grains they consume are not wheat based...hummmmmm. Or wait...they don't eat much sugar. Maybe that is the key to their long life expectancy. When they started eating sugar and wheat like us westerners they started getting the same sick bodies...HBP, HBG, HChol, heart disease. Hummmm makes you stop and think.

LaJauna

I always get suspicious when some virtually removes an entire food group....

Me too. Those vegans are suspicious....

I keep coming back to this thread for the chuckles.
:laugh:

Thanks. I was chuckling when I wrote it. It just drives me insane when they pick on Paleo/Low carbers and completely overlook other dietary groups that limit or eliminate completely whole entire food groups. It seems biased to me.

believetoachieve

Thanks. I was chuckling when I wrote it. It just drives me insane when they pick on Paleo/Low carbers and completely overlook other dietary groups that limit or eliminate completely whole entire food groups. It seems biased to me.

That's because this is a thread about Paleo dieting. All the other diet theories are still being poked at, but in their respective threads. :laugh:

myofibril

In the absence of sugar in their diet the rice they live on doesn't seem to cause the same problems that our wheat consumption causes. It might be that the grains they consume are not wheat based...hummmmmm. Or wait...they don't eat much sugar.

So, which is it? Is sugar entirely absent or is it low in sugar? Clearly the Japanese do consume sugar just in lower quantities that usual Western diets. That goes for salt as well. I don't think most people really need telling that a diet high in sugar and salt isn't the greatest thing in the world. But of course high does not equal absent or indeed low.

Oh, whilst rice is a staple of Japanese cuisine it is less prevalent than those funny, long strand like things, usually white. Now what are they called again? Oh yeah, noodles. I'm pretty sure noodles are made from flour made from those cursed grain thingymawatsits. Next time I go to Wagamamas and order my favourite Udon dish I will ask my waitress just to be sure.

Maybe that is the key to their long life expectancy. When they started eating sugar and wheat like us westerners they started getting the same sick bodies...HBP, HBG, HChol, heart disease. Hummmm makes you stop and think.

I think you are confusing Japanese and Chinese cultures here. Japan has been particularly resistant to Western influences. The recent liberalisation of the Chinese market however as lead to instances of increasing obesity in built up areas where calorie dense, as opposed to wheat based, Western food is available. In rural areas, where the staple is rice then no.

At least the debate seems to have moved on. We have gone from "grains are bad" to "some grains, specifically wheat based, are bad" and "rice isn't that bad unless it is combined with sugar and in dieting." I find both those positions dubious to say the least but if it works for you then keep on keeping on. Me? I will continue eating rice, noodles, bread, alcohol or whatever takes my fancy from time to time with no fear.

Grokette

Hey all, in doing some research I found out the OP was talking about Primal eating, not Paleo. Paleo limits saturated fats and primal does not, thus some of the discrepancies and confusion:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/whats-the-difference-between-primal-and-paleo/
What's interesting about this is that I have been eating more Primal than Paleo. I have NOT been watching my saturated fats (I eat brisket, etc on a regular basis) and as I explain before I am more lenient with rice and oats. This latter difference is due to the gluten factor. In terms of the saturated fat I find it hard to meet my calories just eating lean meats and I find fat satiating. Nonetheless I hit closer to 40% fat on most days, not 70.

I know we mentioned marksdailyapple.com before, but I think specific articles in it are healthy. Although I just said Paleo and primal are different they both eliminate grains, and plus since we are really arguing about primal I think we are okay bringing Mark in some more.

Here is an article on why he thinks grains are unhealthy
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-grains-are-unhealthy/

Here's an article where he acknowledges rice is not so bad unless trying to lose weight:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-rice-unhealthy/

In both of these articles, he lumps oats in with wheat because he says they contain gluten, when in reality oats only contain gluten if they are processed in the same facility. Although most oats are, there are gluten-free oats (which I eat) that I think deserve the same exception as rice.

This whole conversation got started because I stated on another thread that I am eating pretty strict Paleo / Primal way of eating and right now my ratios for fat, protein and carbs were 70%, 25%, 5%. I am eating Paleo and another website I frequent recommended that since I was going stricter for me to up my fat intake pretty high until my appetitie decreased, which is what I have done.............

This whole week my ratios have been more like fat, protein, carbs = 50%, 35%, 15% but my caloric intake severely dips when I eat this way.

As far as the oats containing gluten.............there is also cross contamination that can occur where a wheat, barley or rye field could be across the road or next to a field growing oats causing the grains to then contain gluten.

I have mentioned several times that I have my ratios set to suit my body and what is working for me to feel good, have energy and be able to work, study, care for my houshold and exercise. The way high fat ratios were allowing me to have great amounts of energy to get everything done. Then I sleep better and I am in way better moods.

Once I get most of the weight off, I will be eating basmati rice on occasion, probably once every couple of weeks.........

shellybeelee

wow what a thread.. okay heres just a few points to be taken into consideration. I am not a doctor. I'm a nursing student and these are just a few things that i have learned about physiology and how the body works. Also i am consulting my books right now so i'm not pulling it out of the air.. they are just college textbooks. can't exactly give you a web page to go look at..
first of all. we have been trained to think that fats are bad for us, but it is saturated fats that are bad, as long as you eat unsaturated fats they are actually quite beneficial.
Here is the break down of calories.
1 gram of fat has 9 calories
1 gram of protein has 4 calories
1 gram of carbohydrate has 4 calories
So to maintain a lower calorie diet you have to eat less if you are going to have a high fat diet.
A diet high in either of the three groups can be detrimental.

Heres what it says on carbohydrates

Carbohydrates are either simple or complex. Glucose is a simple sugar preferred by the body as an energy source. Complex carbohydrates with several sugar units are digested to glucose. While body cells can use fatty acids as an energy source, brain cells require glucose. For this reason alone, it is necessary to include carbohydrates in the diet because the body is unable to convert fatty acids to glucose.

Any product made from refined grains, such as white bread, cake, and cookies, should be minimized in the diet. During refinement, fiber and also vitamins and minerals are removed from grains, so primarily starch remains. In contrast, sources of complex carbohydrates, such as beans, peas, nuts, fruits, and whole-grain products, are recommended as a good source of vitamins, minerals, and also fiber. Insoluble fiber adds bulk to fecal material and stimulates movements of the large intestine, preventing constipation. Soluble fiber combines with bile salts and cholesterol in the small intestine and prevents them from being absorbed.

Can Carbohydrates Be Harmful?
Some nutritionists hypothesize that the high intake of refined carbohydrates and fructose sweeteners processed from cornstarch may be responsible for obesity in the United States. In addition, these foods are said to have a high glycemic index (GI) , because they quickly increase blood glucose. When the blood glucose level rises rapidly, the pancreas produces an overload of insulin to bring the level under control. Investigators tell us that a chronically high insulin level may lead to insulin resistance, diabetes type 2, and increased fat deposition. Deposition of fat is associated with coronary heart disease, liver ailments, and several types of cancer.



Proteins
Dietary proteins are digested to amino acids, which cells use to synthesize hundreds of cellular proteins. Of the 20 different amino acids, nine are essential amino acids that must be present in the diet. Children will not grow if their diets lack the essential amino acids. Eggs, milk products, meat, poultry, and most other foods derived from animals contain all nine essential amino acids and are “complete” or “high-quality” protein sources.

Legumes (beans and peas) (Fig. 8.13), other types of vegetables, seeds and nuts, and grains supply us with amino acids. However, each of these alone is an incomplete protein source, because of a deficiency in at least one of the essential amino acids. Absence of one essential amino acid prevents use of the other 19 amino acids. Therefore, vegetarians are counselled to combine two or more incomplete types of plant products to acquire all the essential amino acids. Tofu, soymilk, and other foods made from processed soybeans are complete protein sources. A balanced vegetarian diet is possible with a little knowledge and planning.

Can Proteins Be Harmful?
The liver removes the nitrogen-containing compound from an amino acid. By converting this portion to urea, the liver enables potentially toxic nitrogen to be removed from our bodies. However, large amounts of water are needed to properly excrete urea. Therefore, dehydration may occur if protein consumption is excessive. High-protein diets, especially those rich in animal proteins, can also increase calcium loss in urine. Excretion of calcium may lead to kidney stones and bone loss.

Certain types of meat, especially red meat, are known to be high in saturated fats, while other sources of protein, such as chicken, fish, and eggs, are more likely to be low in saturated fats. Better protein sources include chicken, fish, and egg whites, which are more likely to be low in saturated fats. As you recall from Chapter 5, excessive dietary saturated fat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease .

Lipids
Fats, oils, and cholesterol are lipids. Saturated fats, which are solids at room temperature, usually have an animal origin. Two well-known exceptions are palm oil and coconut oil, which contain mostly saturated fats and come from the plants mentioned . Butter and fats associated with meats (like the fat on steak and bacon) contain saturated fats.

Oils contain unsaturated fatty acids, which do not promote cardiovascular disease. Corn oil and safflower oil are high in polyunsaturated fatty acids. Polyunsaturated oils are the only type of fat that contains linoleic acid and linolenic acid, two fatty acids the body cannot make. These fatty acids must be supplied by diet, so they are called essential fatty acids .

Olive oil and canola oil are well known to contain a larger percentage of monounsaturated fatty acids than other types of cooking oils. Omega-3 fatty acids—with a double bond in the third position—are believed to preserve brain function and protect against heart disease. Flaxseed contains abundant omega-3 fatty acids. Cold-water fish like salmon, sardines, and trout are also excellent sources.

Can Lipids Be Harmful?
The risk for cardiovascular disease is increased by a diet high in saturated fats and cholesterol. Saturated fats contribute to the formation of lesions associated with artherosclerosis inside the blood vessels. These lesions, termed atherosclerotic plaques, limit the flow of blood through these vessels. (See Chap. 5 for a review of the process.) Cholesterol is carried in the blood by the two transport proteins: high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL). Cholesterol transported by HDL (the “good” lipoprotein) ends up in the liver where the cholesterol is metabolized. Cholesterol carried by LDL (the “bad” lipoprotein) ends up being deposited in the tissues. Artherosclerotic plaques form when levels of HDL are low and/or when levels of LDL are high. Recommended levels of HDL and LDL can be re-established by a diet low in saturated fats and cholesterol.

Trans-fatty acids (trans fats) arise when unsaturated fatty acids are hydrogenated to produce a solid fat. The function of the cell-membrane receptors that clear cholesterol from the bloodstream may be reduced by trans fats resulting in higher blood cholesterol level. Trans fats are found in commercially packaged goods, such as cookies and crackers. Unfortunately, other snacks such as microwave popcorn may be sources as well. Be aware that any packaged goods containing “partially hydrogenated” vegetable oils or shortening contain trans fats. Some margarines used for home cooking or baking incorporate hydrogenated vegetable oil. Commercially fried foods, such as French fries from some fast-food chains, should be strictly limited in a healthy diet. Though tasty, these are often full of trans fats.




:flowerforyou: Okay so there is everything that I know. Pretty much fats are okay as long as you are not eating saturated or trans fats.. in fact never eat trans fats. they aren't even real in nature.. Anyways I think its best to find what works for your body. Everything about grains in the paleo diet is totally true, we dont need grains and they are not a good form of carbohydrates. Do what works for you, your life style, and your body...

Also last bit from my book

Searching for the Magic Weight-Loss Bullet
“Eat a variety of foods, watch your weight, and exercise” doesn't sound like a very glamorous way to lose weight. Besides you can't sell the message to the public and make a lot of money. No wonder the public, always looking for the magic weight-loss bullet, is offered so many solutions to being overweight, most of which are not healthy. The solutions involve trendy diet programs, new prescription medications, and even surgery. The latter two options are for people who have tried a low-calorie diet and regular physical activity but have been unsuccessful in losing weight. Prescription medications should only be taken under a physician's supervision, and of course, surgeries are only done by physicians.

TRENDY DIET PROGRAMS:
Various diets for the over-weight have been around for many years, and here are some recently touted:

The Pritikin Diet This diet encourages the consumption of large amounts of carbohydrates and fiber in the form of whole grains and vegetables. The diet is so low-fat that the dieter may not be able to consume a sufficient amount of “healthy” fats.
The Atkins Diet This diet is just the opposite of the Pritikin Diet because it is a low-carbohydrate (carb) diet. It is based on the assumption that if we eat more protein and fat, our bodies lose weight by burning stored body fat. The Atkins diet is thought by many to be a serious threat to homeostasis. It puts a strain on the body to maintain the blood glucose level, the breakdown of fat lowers blood pH, and the excretion of nitrogen from protein breakdown stresses the kidneys.
The Zone Diet and the South Beach Diet As a reaction to the Atkins diet, these diets recommend only “healthy” fats and permit low-sugar carbs. In other words, these diets are bringing us back, once again, to “Eat a variety of foods, maintain your weight, and exercise.”
You may have heard of the caveman diet. The caveman diet mimics the diets of humans prior to agricultural pursuits. It promotes the consumption of meats, fish, fruits, and vegetables. If you would rather not change your lifestyle dramatically, you can “flush” fat away, according to some nutritionists. They assert that by consuming certain foods, such as cayenne pepper, mustard, cinnamon, green vegetables, and omega-3-rich fish, you can boost your metabolic rate and cleanse your body of fat.

Then again, according to a professor at Brigham Young University, the cure for endless dieting and the key to reaching a healthy weight is to listen to your body. Using a hunger scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being starving and 10 being very overfull, keep around 3 to 5 and you will eat less. Unfortunately, such sensible advice doesn't seem to have caught on yet.

Thank you McGraw-Hill and Connect =D i'm not stealing or saying this is mine, blahblahblahblahblah.. dont sue. yeahh

SweetBeth

The question is "Is Atkins/Paleo a healthy way to lose weight?" According to most doctors and the CDC and other government agencies it isn't really all that good for you. Now I know that those doctors are on the government pay roll and they only want to see Americans get fatter so the pay checks from the grain lobbyists keep rolling in, but they also advocate a way to lose weight that works. I clearly don't understand why they would do this when they want us all to get fatter, but there it is. Eat clean, healthy foods, in moderation. Don't cut anything out completely so you get full nutrition, and add exercise to your daily life.

This method has worked for hundreds of thousands of people too. They've lost just as much weight and been just as successful as those on the Atkins/Paleo diet and they gain it all back when they stop eating that way too. The difference is that there is no reason they have to stop. No doctor is going to tell someone they aren't getting enough twinkies in their diet, or that all those fresh veggies, and health carbs, has caused their kidney's to stop functioning properly. And nobody's going to say man that exercise you've been doing has really raised your cholesterol and you need to stop right now.

The bottom line is that there are many many ways to lose weight. Some are healthier than others, some are dangerous, and some are flat out stupid. I don't think Paleo is the most unhealthy, or the stupidest, or even really all that dangerous, but it's also not the best. It does give people a jump so they can lose weight and improve their health, so IMO it's really not that horrible. It's just not that great either.

I agree with a lot of this post.

This is an interesting thread. I have enjoyed the debates about "real doctors" and appendices. Despite the hot debate, I feel compelled to join the fray with a few points of my own:

1. As a "real doctor", I feel compelled to assure the community that I have no interest in people getting fatter. As an ER specialist, I see way too many people dying from complications of obesity, the condition makes caring for patients much harder, and in fact I have taken a special interest in it going away

2. The medical community is slowly realizing that low carb/sugarless diets are best for diabetes. I rarely recommend an Atkins-Paleo type diet to anyone, but it is an excellent lifestyle change for a diabetic.
http://www.atkins.com/science/sciencearticleslibrary/Category2/Diabetes.aspx

3. I think there are lots of good ways to be healthy and lose weight. Most of them include eating a balanced diet with plenty of protein, fruits, and vegetables. Many grain-based foods are processed and in avoiding them you can avoid a lot of processed food. You can also avoid them by only eating whole grains such as oats and brown rice.

4. There is a rising concern with gluten intolerance and its link to autoimmune disease and cancer. I myself have experienced great health benefits with eliminating it from my diet, and think there are a lot of undiagnosed gluten intolerant people out there that benefit from Paleo in this way. http://denver.yourhub.com/Littleton/Stories/Archive/Health-Fitness/Diet/Story~390017.aspx

5. We are recogonizing more and more that sugar consumption, especially the processed kind, is much worse for us than fat ever was. The insulin response and effect on the body can be profound. I honestly think at the end of the daqy with depends on your individual genetic makeup and hormonal responses http://www.rheumatic.org/sugar.htm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20047137

6. A lot of people also have dairy intolerance due to difficulties digesting lactose and/or casein, and will find a lot less bloating and easier weight loss without it.

7. The human body is resilient. It will learn to adapt and thrive on any sort of energy input. They key is to find the best sources for YOUR body. I have found my body functions best with plenty of veggies and protein, low dairy, and a moderate amount of gluten-free carbs. My husband does best on plenty of fruits and carbs and a moderate amount of protein. I don't lecture him on eating my way (well, except for encouraging more veggies)....

In short, I don't know what the argument is over. Everyone's body is different, and science has failed to provide definitive proof we all need to eat the same. So congratulations to those who have found a lifestyle that works for them, and good luck to those still searching.

Amazing!!! I thought we'd never get a fully intelligent and open-minded post on this subject. I love that you note that the human body is resilient and that anything we put in will be used as fuel. Obviously...be smart people. Don't create a crayon and dirt diet and expect support, but as long as we are trying to find a diet that makes us feel healthier and stronger, is it really necessary to be so hateful? Everything you put in your body will get some kind of results, whether good or bad. It's really a trial and error until you find the ideal results for you.

I mean really, do you trust the government to tell you how to dress, pray, talk? I don't take anything from anybody just by their word. And if you hadn't noticed, our government in particular is great at putting their "spin" on "facts." Why would I let them tell me how to eat? The body knows what the body needs. I don't need a bunch of suits to tell me that. It's instinctual.

LaJauna

The Atkins diet is thought by many to be a serious threat to homeostasis. It puts a strain on the body to maintain the blood glucose level, the breakdown of fat lowers blood pH, and the excretion of nitrogen from protein breakdown stresses the kidneys.
The Zone Diet and the South Beach Diet As a reaction to the Atkins diet, these diets recommend only “healthy” fats and permit low-sugar carbs. In other words, these diets are bringing us back, once again, to “Eat a variety of foods, maintain your weight, and exercise.”

I hate that this is used over and over again to describe Atkins...."Stresses the kidneys". Yes if you already have full blown kidney disease(read: no kidney function), you should probably limit your protein intake. If you have healthy kidneys, they are quite capable of handling massive amounts of protein in the absence of excess carbohydrate in the form of sugars! I have a sister-in-law who gained alot of weight after a successful kidney transplant (from a family member). The nephrologist (kidney doctor out of University of Californina, San Franisisco) put her on Atkins to help her get to a healthy weight. Now if a kidney doctor doesn't think it is dangerous, who am I to say it is!

freerange

wow what a thread.. okay heres just a few points to be taken into consideration. I am not a doctor. I'm a nursing student and these are just a few things that i have learned about physiology and how the body works.

look up ketones in your book and tell us what it says about them and how the brain uses them.

undrznith

To the original poster....

Gluten Sensitivity Article - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576200393522456636.html

Dr's Intro to Paleo - http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html

Dr. on Milk's Effects on Body (Why I first cut dairy, for my breastfeeding son. He is no longer constipated, sleeps much more soundly andis no longer in pain asa result. I feel great without and don't miss it) - http://drjaygordon.com/pediatricks/dairy.html

Kind of long but I found it an interesting read. Pages are short. - http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?src=pm

For those interested in substitutes for things, a great recipe blog site.... http://www.elanaspantry.com/ She has recipes for cupcakes, frosting, crackers, salad dressings, breads and anything else you can imagine. She eats very close to paleo and has a lot of paleo recipes, and those that aren't I am sure can be very easily adapted.

www.everydaypaleo.com is a great website with recipes and also talks about paleo when it comes to every day life and family.



I will say that for me, personally, I have found eating paleo I feel much better than I did trying my best to be active and eat healthy before. I also find it much easier to do so. I find I get more of my nutrients needed for the day this way as well. Since making the switch I have more energy, my life long depression, anxiety and mood swings (which have been dealt with on and off with medications through the years) are no longer issues. My husband actually made a comment the other day which says a lot. He has always had difficulty dealing with it and I know I am much more even tempered and easier to live with. My two year old has had a major temper and mood swings also, and is now much more even with his temper. He listens better, has WAY fewer tantrums and when he does have them they are very short lived. He is much more compliant, while still maintaining his bubbly, energetic and happy personality. He is also very healthy. I have about 50-65% fat on any given day, it varies. I eat to hunger and whatever I feel the need to eat. I don't know my carb and protein ratios. Normally my carbs are around 100ish or so and maybe about a third of that is fiber and the rest I guess would be protein. I get about 2000-2200 calories a day (I am breastfeeding my six month old, by the way my supply is also FANTASTIC) My son I am sure has a very different ratio. I know he gets a lot more carbs than I do, he gets what he wants when he wants. I just make sure to keep the house stocked with foods that are healthy. This way all of his choices will be the "right" ones, and the fact that he is picking I know they will be the right ones for him specifically. His body knows what it needs better than I do, I think. Looking at his intake it is very balanced.

The thing with the paleo way of eating is that you figure out what your body works best with. The 30 day challenge where you go very strict is very helpful. Doing this you can then reintroduce foods and see how your body responds and fine tune your diet to where your body performs at it's best. As other people have said if you have any curiosity about paleo or primal eating, give it a trial run for about 30 days and see what you think, how you feel, etc. People can argue until they are blue in the face but what it really comes down to is how your food makes you feel and how it affects your individual body. Good luck in finding what works best for you!

TimWeis75

Some real research on the subject, published in June 2007's International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09637480701240752

Both the Low and Moderate Carbohydrate groups lost significantly more weight as well as inches from their waists and thighs than the Control group, while the Low Carbohydrate group lost a greater percentage of body fat. Although the Moderate Carbohydrate group showed significant reductions in serum cholesterol, the Low Carbohydrate group showed the greatest improvements in serum cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, and very-low-density lipoprotein.

I take issue with the "conclusion" drawn from the results, but I think that's because one of the researchers is employed by Kellogg's.

amysj303

Kind of long but I found it an interesting read. Pages are short. - http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?src=pm

Interesting article, thanks for sharing.

LaJauna

Both the Low and Moderate Carbohydrate groups lost significantly more weight as well as inches from their waists and thighs than the Control group, while the Low Carbohydrate group lost a greater percentage of body fat. Although the Moderate Carbohydrate group showed significant reductions in serum cholesterol, the Low Carbohydrate group showed the greatest improvements in serum cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, and very-low-density lipoprotein.

There are control groups like this all over the map and yet people refuse to see the correlation to eating a healthy low carb/high fat diet. I just don't get it. It is as if they don't want to see the forest for the trees. I am stunned by the researchers ( who refuse to speak up louder) and the reporters of the research (who are biased).

freerange

At least the debate seems to have moved on. We have gone from "grains are bad" to "some grains, specifically wheat based, are bad" and "rice isn't that bad unless it is combined with sugar and in dieting." I find both those positions dubious to say the least but if it works for you then keep on keeping on. Me? I will continue eating rice, noodles, bread, alcohol or whatever takes my fancy from time to time with no fear.

Actually the argument has ALWAYS been grains with gluten are not optimal food sources. Rice is empty calories, that in moderation does not have any adverse affect on the body, unless you are already insulin resistant, then the insulin spike you get from the carbs in the rice could/would have a negative effect. Same with potatoes, nothing all that much wrong with them, it’s just that they are pretty much empty calories.

Really you should stop with the straw man arguments, you setting up a false premise just so you can shoot it down does nothing to further your argument.

And as for the Japanese, yes they eat a lot of rice, but they eat very little gluten, and they eat a ton of fish, fresh vegetables and fruits. And they eat on average 25% less calories than the typical western diet.

Ask a sumo wrestler how healthy rice is.