"Paleo diet" - 70% fat???

whittrusty

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

sweet_lotus

whereas today, intake of carbohydrates, most of them grain based, does seem to be linked to higher mortality

Maybe high intakes of processed carbohydrates that have little fiber? That's likely, but whole grains with intact dietary fiber may have a protective effect.

Dietary fiber, specifically those *from* grains, correlates with lowered risk of mortality.

In the a follow up to a 500,000 participant NIH diet study, researchers examined the records of 30,000 who had since passed away of cardiovascular, infectious and respiratory disease. They found that those eating dietary fiber were 22% less likely to be in the postmortem group.

Specifically: "Dietary fiber from grains, but not from other sources, was significantly inversely related to total and cause-specific death in both men and women."

Source: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/archinternmed.2011.18v1

While it might be possible that the fiber/grain eaters maybe had healthier habits that could otherwise explain the correlation, an analysis point out, "this relationship persisted in analyses by smoking status and across body mass index categories."

Analysis: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/24869

Grokette

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

What is there to be suspicious be about when first of all you can get just as many nutrients from other foods such as vegetables as you can from dairy, grains, legumes or lentils?

Why would you continue to eat dairy if it causes major flare ups of seasonal allergies, excess phlegm and mucus?

Why would you continue to subject themselves to continue to eat grains when after eating them you feel lethargic, fluish, bloated, symptoms of arthritis, IBS, or other ailments?

That makes no sense to me. The majority of us that have cut these food items from our eating plans did so beause of some of the above mentioned reasons.............

Besides, the Food Pyramid is designed the way it is for a particular reason. Grains are cheap and fuel the food companies in this country.

They get no more of my money, ever!!

mrphil86

Why would you continue to subject themselves to continue to eat grains when after eating them you feel lethargic, fluish, bloated, symptoms of arthritis, IBS, or other ailments?

Never had this problem period. Infact, I feel tired from eating fat.

Again, no solid proof that grains cause all of the above. You're complete lifestyle does, not just the diet.

lodro

whereas today, intake of carbohydrates, most of them grain based, does seem to be linked to higher mortality

Maybe high intakes of processed carbohydrates that have little fiber? That's likely, but whole grains with intact dietary fiber may have a protective effect.

Dietary fiber, specifically those *from* grains, correlates with lowered risk of mortality.

In the a follow up to a 500,000 participant NIH diet study, researchers examined the records of 30,000 who had since passed away of cardiovascular, infectious and respiratory disease. They found that those eating dietary fiber were 22% less likely to be in the postmortem group.

Specifically: "Dietary fiber from grains, but not from other sources, was significantly inversely related to total and cause-specific death in both men and women."

Source: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/archinternmed.2011.18v1

While it might be possible that the fiber/grain eaters maybe had healthier habits that could otherwise explain the correlation, an analysis point out, "this relationship persisted in analyses by smoking status and across body mass index categories."

Analysis: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/24869

the abstract concludes

Dietary fiber may reduce the risk of death from cardiovascular, infectious, and respiratory diseases. Making fiber-rich food choices more often may provide significant health benefits.

I think all paleo eaters will agree with that. Only they don't eat whole grains.
You seem to forget that fiber is in other foodstuffs than whole grains.

lodro

Why would you continue to subject themselves to continue to eat grains when after eating them you feel lethargic, fluish, bloated, symptoms of arthritis, IBS, or other ailments?

Never had this problem period. Infact, I feel tired from eating fat.

Again, no solid proof that grains cause all of the above. You're complete lifestyle does, not just the diet.

Your N=1 evidence is equally valid as all the so called anecdotal evidence you so readily dissmiss.

I totally agree that it's the lifestyle, not the diet alone.

mrphil86

Some of the stuff was good. Some of it I have already seen. Point is, there still is no evidence that grains are going to wipe humans off the face of the earth. Doubt something will say it will. Grain products have been around for quite sometime, but these diseases are just coming up in numbers. Hmm...

Perhaps you're confusing your own rhetoric with Paleo? I've never seen anyone saying grains are going to wipe humans off the face of the Earth. The point is simply this: gluten has been implicated in a whole host of diseases and syndromes, many of which I linked to above. We all have the same gluten receptors in our gut (celiac / schizophrenic / pigs, or not), and it causes gut irritability. In some people, this can lead to muchos problemos. For me personally, I eat low carb, as clean as possible, and very few grains. I typically call this Paleo / Primal since it fits better than other diet descriptions. This way of eating works for me, even though I am not schizophrenic, celiac, or a pig. It works for many others as well. It certainly doesn't *hurt* anyone to try it, and could greatly help those that are suffering from celiac, rheumatoid arthritis, or other autoimmune disorders.

You asked for studies, I gave them. Your interpretation of over half of the studies is fairly absurd and makes me think that you haven't read many (any) journal articles. Science is all about baby steps, and large, longitudinal studies of human diets are nearly impossible to conduct since you would need a controlled environment and a ton of funding. There are plenty of other studies that you can find on Pubmed if you're interested in more research. I've already done the research on myself and this way of eating works for me. I dunno - this just seems like a curious amount of vitriol from someone who has apparently fallen hook, line, and sinker for the Tony Horton Marketing Machine.

I'm thinking you read what you wanted to read in the studies. I pointed out facts in the studies, not opinions except the last two.

BR1986FB

I'm a Beachbody coach too and I don't buy that crap they are selling in the form of "nutrition." If I would have followed their eating plan, as prescribed, for P90X my results would have sucked. I appreciate the workouts, which I no longer do for the most part (changed to Crossfit, more "bang", less time), but their nutrition isn't worth my time.

BTW...I'm probably the WORST Beachbody coach in that I don't peddle their products. Never have taken a sip of Shakeology in my life, nor do I want to. Became a coach to get discounts on the workout programs.

jknops2

Ok, my last post on this topic. Looking around I found these are two relevant, balanced peer-reviewed, well cited, articles. The second one is a follow-up to the original, which started most of this diet debate 25 years ago.

The first one lists the following numbers as an estimated ancestral Hunter-Gatherer diet (numbers are % of daily intake):

Carbohydrates: 35-40%
Protein: 25-30%
Fat: 20-35%
Saturated Fat: 7.5-12%
Added Sugar: 2%
Fiber: >70 g/d
Cholesterol: >500mg/d
Vitamin C: 500mg/d
Vitamin D 4000 IU/d
Sodium < 1000 mg/d
Potassium 7000 mg/d

Note these numbers are pretty similar to current diet recommendations, except, sugar and sodium is much lower, and fiber, Vit. C, Vit. D and potassium was much higher. Current research increasingly supports lowering sugar and sodium and increasing fiber, Vit. C and D in our diet.

Cholesterol intake also was much higher. However, physical activity was also much higher, weight lower and nobody smoked. Which are all other risk factors that add to cardiovascular risk. Thus, unless more evidence becomes available, keeping cholesterol intake low seems better to me.

And a final note, this is basically my diet, so I guess I too am on a hunter/gatherer diet. Except I sit at my desk way to much reading this and writing this. Getting out would be better, but being stalked by a sable tooth tiger cannot have been fun either.

Eaton SB, Konner M. Paleolithic nutrition: a consideration of its nature and current implications. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:283-289.

Paleolithic Nutrition : Twenty-Five Years Later. Melvin Konner and S. Boyd Eaton Nutr Clin Pract 2010 25: 594

http://ncp.sagepub.com/content/25/6/594

cutmd

Ok, my last post on this topic. Looking around I found these are two relevant, balanced peer-reviewed, well cited, articles. The second one is a follow-up to the original, which started most of this diet debate 25 years ago.

The first one lists the following numbers as an estimated ancestral Hunter-Gatherer diet (numbers are % of daily intake):

Carbohydrates: 35-40%
Protein: 25-30%
Fat: 20-35%
Saturated Fat: 7.5-12%
Added Sugar: 2%
Fiber: >70 g/d
Cholesterol: >500mg/d
Vitamin C: 500mg/d
Vitamin D 4000 IU/d
Sodium < 1000 mg/d
Potassium 7000 mg/d

Note these numbers are pretty similar to current diet recommendations, except, sugar and sodium is much lower, and fiber, Vit. C, Vit. D and potassium was much higher. Current research increasingly supports lowering sugar and sodium and increasing fiber, Vit. C and D in our diet.

Cholesterol intake also was much higher. However, physical activity was also much higher, weight lower and nobody smoked. Which are all other risk factors that add to cardiovascular risk. Thus, unless more evidence becomes available, keeping cholesterol intake low seems better to me.

And a final note, this is basically my diet, so I guess I too am on a hunter/gatherer diet. Except I sit at my desk way to much reading this and writing this. Getting out would be better, but being stalked by a sable tooth tiger cannot have been fun either.

Eaton SB, Konner M. Paleolithic nutrition: a consideration of its nature and current implications. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:283-289.

Paleolithic Nutrition : Twenty-Five Years Later. Melvin Konner and S. Boyd Eaton Nutr Clin Pract 2010 25: 594

http://ncp.sagepub.com/content/25/6/594

This is interesting. But I think at the end of the day the vast majority of people don't even need to measure their protein/carb/fat ratios, just eat food as minimally processed as possible, eliminate foods that cause them trouble, and the rest falls into place.

Jeez, I wandered away from this thread for a few days and here we go again with the vitriol. CANT WE JUST ALL GET ALONG??? AND HAVE A PEACEFUL DISCUSSION/DEBATE??? :frown:

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.