Paleo, anyone?

mynameisuntz

Well? What is your diet?

What is the relevance? I don't believe my diet to be the optimal, best, Parkinson's-curing diet that the masterminds of paleo believe theirs to be. I believe mine to be healthy, but not universally superior. My diet, in terms of what I claim it to be (generally healthy), is legitimate. Lots of vegetables, fruits, hummus, whole grain tortillas, protein shakes, cheese, eggs.

And speaking of claims, I would like to see the scientific study showing grains are beneficial for you,,,,,,,,,,,,, compared to not eating grains.

Funny, I don't remember making that claim. I'll make the claim that eating grains are not detrimental to health, but are at worst neutral to health.

-Katcher et al. performed a 12 week trial and found that a whole grain-enriched hypocaloric diet significantly reduced C-reactive protein levels (the protein marker of inflammation correlated to CHD).

-Bjorck et al. found that hydrothermally processed cereal designed to stimulate endogenous ASF significantly improved the symptoms of patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Importantly, the control treatment consisting of regular cereal showed no significant effect either way.

-A study done by Ekesbo et al. replicating the previously mentioned study showed improved effects in both hydrothermally processed cereal and regular cereal regarding diseases of the GI tract.

-Andersson A, Tengblad S, Karlström B, Kamal-Eldin A, Landberg R, Basu S, Aman P, Vessby B. Whole-grain foods do not affect insulin sensitivity or markers of lipid peroxidation and inflammation in healthy, moderately overweight subjects. J Nutr. 2007 Jun;137(6):1401-7

-Tighe P, Duthie G, Vaughan N, Brittenden J, Simpson WG, Duthie S, Mutch W, Wahle K, Horgan G, Thies F. Effect of increased consumption of whole-grain foods on blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk markers in healthy middle-aged persons: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Oct;92(4):733-40.

-Giacco R, Clemente G, Cipriano D, Luongo D, Viscovo D, Patti L, Di Marino L, Giacco A, Naviglio D, Bianchi MA, Ciati R, Brighenti F, Rivellese AA, Riccardi G. Effects of the regular consumption of wholemeal wheat foods on cardiovascular risk factors in healthy people. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2010 Mar;20(3):186-94.

-Kelly SA, Summerbell CD, Brynes A, Whittaker V, Frost G. Wholegrain cereals for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):CD005051.

You can stick to your correlations and biochemical research all you want. In terms of research that looks at the practicality of eating a realistic amount of whole grains for healthy human beings, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH GRAINS. To say otherwise is to take the side that the science is overwhelmingly against, and also has zero science to support its claims.

Teemo

And plenty with yours, so time to taken the broken record off the turntable.

Someone doesn't understand that the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim.

Everyone's always looking for the next nutritional "boogeyman". Of the diets that really are without practical or scientific foundation, "paleo" is probably the least egregious offender. If nothing else it's still an improvement on the layperson's diet.

Edit:

Why did I write "bogeyman"?

mynameisuntz

Of the diets that really are without practical or scientific foundation, "paleo" is probably the least egregious offender. If nothing else it's still an improvement on the layperson's diet.

I would actually argue it's a pretty major offender in terms of its scientific validity.

It's a shame that high schools don't force more empirical classes on students. Reading scientific data and approaching empirical literature is an art, make no mistake about it. People will interpret and disagree on different articles and findings along with the significance of those articles and findings. Someone who has never formally studied science will struggle when it comes to approaching a study just as I would struggle when it comes to critiquing a painting or building a house.

People see "science" or "PhD" and think it means "valid" or "truth." Couldn't be further from the case. And in regards to paleo, there are so many gaping holes in their diet that need to be filled. But people don't understand the "requirements" necessary to accept something as true or practical. They see "research-backed" without understanding that correlational research means NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. But hey, it's got a doctor supporting it and some research, so it MUST be right.

Shrug.

Teemo

I would actually argue it's a pretty major offender in terms of its scientific validity.

Least egregious as a practical matter. Following the paleo diet won't perform any of the (minor) miracles claimed, but it's better than the sugar-heavy processed calorie-laden junk that got most of us into this mess.

mynameisuntz

Least egregious as a practical matter. Following the paleo diet won't perform any of the (minor) miracles claimed, but it's better than the sugar-heavy processed calorie-laden junk that got most of us into this mess.

Absolutely agree. Like I've said: I promote anyone who wants to go on paleo. It's totally healthy. But if you start to claim my diet is unhealthy for the fact that it has dairy and whole grains, I will shatter your nutritional dreams.

Womp womp.

pyro13g

I would actually argue it's a pretty major offender in terms of its scientific validity.

Hmm.. eating like every other creature on this earth does, has no scientific validity? We evolved, and survived, living off the land and sea. It led to becoming this highly intelligent, yet screwed up species destroying a planet, that is now very sick by their own doing. You might want to look at data on asian metropolis' and note the rise in afflictions that the rural areas are not seeing. Exactly the same chain of health events that the US experienced, and continues to worsen.

"Lots of vegetables, fruits, hummus, whole grain tortillas, protein shakes, cheese, eggs. " It looks like you fall within or are very close to being within Paleo/Primal parameters.

There's no gaping holes in RDA nutrition with Paleo. I blow the RDA out of the water at a 1000 calorie deficit. Just imagine how much further the RDA get's trounced at maintenance. Why would you want to eat foods that need to be "fortified"? Why do you think there is such a huge supplement market? Why do I see so many commercials for drugs to deal with diet and lifestyle issues that have long lists of side effects, even lethal ones? And the need is rooted in a diet pushed by government and big money. The lifestyle issues are rooted in same.

mynameisuntz

Hmm.. eating like every other creature on this earth does, has no scientific validity? We evolved, and survived, living off the land and sea. It led to becoming this highly intelligent, yet screwed up species destroying a planet, that is now very sick by their own doing.

Correct, that is NOT scientific validity.

You might want to look at data on asian metropolis' and note the rise in afflictions that the rural areas are not seeing. Exactly the same chain of health events that the US experienced, and continues to worsen.

And what's interesting to me is that you see a correlation, and say, "it's the whole grain! It MUST be the whole grain!"

Don't look at pollution, no. It's the whole grains. It can't be cigarettes or second hand smoke or smog or anything like that. No, no it's the whole grains.

And THAT is why we have science and clinical trials, because correlations alone can't tell us the cause/effect.

"Lots of vegetables, fruits, hummus, whole grain tortillas, protein shakes, cheese, eggs. " It looks like you fall within or are very close to being within Paleo/Primal parameters.

I don't have an issue with paleo eating, like I've said, I only have a problem with the claims/stance that paleo people seem to take. Which is, whole grains are bad, we are meant to eat *THIS* way, and anything anyone else says is wrong. Or we've all been brainwashed by the government to accept whole grains as being healthy.

pyro13g

Hmm.. eating like every other creature on this earth does, has no scientific validity? We evolved, and survived, living off the land and sea. It led to becoming this highly intelligent, yet screwed up species destroying a planet, that is now very sick by their own doing.

Correct, that is NOT scientific validity.

You might want to look at data on asian metropolis' and note the rise in afflictions that the rural areas are not seeing. Exactly the same chain of health events that the US experienced, and continues to worsen.

And what's interesting to me is that you see a correlation, and say, "it's the whole grain! It MUST be the whole grain!"

Don't look at pollution, no. It's the whole grains. It can't be cigarettes or second hand smoke or smog or anything like that. No, no it's the whole grains.

And THAT is why we have science and clinical trials, because correlations alone can't tell us the cause/effect.

"Lots of vegetables, fruits, hummus, whole grain tortillas, protein shakes, cheese, eggs. " It looks like you fall within or are very close to being within Paleo/Primal parameters.

I don't have an issue with paleo eating, like I've said, I only have a problem with the claims/stance that paleo people seem to take. Which is, whole grains are bad, we are meant to eat *THIS* way, and anything anyone else says is wrong. Or we've all been brainwashed by the government to accept whole grains as being healthy.

It's clear you have no stance you stand by. And yes, the evolution of a species to dominance over a planet is science, valid science . Along with all the other species surviving and often thriving within an ecosystem that has no intelligent being screwing with it. Science is also the studies over the years on remaining hunter gather societies and their health. Even those that thrive on a lot of fat, and saturated fat on top of it. Government/Business(money) is the sheep herder. Citizens are the sheep. Do you want to eat the best you can or do you want to be a sheep putting your money in the sheep herders pocket?

mynameisuntz

It's clear you have no stance you stand by. And yes, the evolution of a species to dominance over a planet is science, valid science . Along with all the other species surviving and often thriving within an ecosystem that has no intelligent being screwing with it. Science is also the studies over the years on remaining hunter gather societies and their health. Even those that thrive on a lot of fat, and saturated fat on top of it. Government/Business(money) is the sheep herder. Citizens are the sheep. Do you want to eat the best you can or do you want to be a sheep putting your money in the sheep herders pocket?

What are you talking about? I've given my stance in this thread multiple times in regards to paleo.

Your diatribe here has served no purpose. None. What were you trying to accomplish with that paragraph of nothingness? Yeah evolution is valid, but you assume that we HAVE to eat a certain way because of it? Under what pretext? We evolve very well over "X" years, and as such our bodies have adapted. Confused...

Yep, we have studied hunter gatherer societies and drawn up CORRELATIONS. But we can't assume the CAUSES of the EFFECTS we see from those correlations. Understand?

Nothing wrong with fat or saturated fat...what?

I am eating the best I can based on available science. Based on science, there is nothing wrong with grains, legumes, or dairy. Nothing. And these coming from studies from OTHER COUNTRIES which have no ties to American interests. What are you babbling about? Seriously.

Zeromilediet

-Katcher et al. performed a 12 week trial and found that a whole grain-enriched hypocaloric diet significantly reduced C-reactive protein levels (the protein marker of inflammation correlated to CHD).

-Bjorck et al. found that hydrothermally processed cereal designed to stimulate endogenous ASF significantly improved the symptoms of patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Importantly, the control treatment consisting of regular cereal showed no significant effect either way.

-A study done by Ekesbo et al. replicating the previously mentioned study showed improved effects in both hydrothermally processed cereal and regular cereal regarding diseases of the GI tract.

-Andersson A, Tengblad S, Karlström B, Kamal-Eldin A, Landberg R, Basu S, Aman P, Vessby B. Whole-grain foods do not affect insulin sensitivity or markers of lipid peroxidation and inflammation in healthy, moderately overweight subjects. J Nutr. 2007 Jun;137(6):1401-7

-Tighe P, Duthie G, Vaughan N, Brittenden J, Simpson WG, Duthie S, Mutch W, Wahle K, Horgan G, Thies F. Effect of increased consumption of whole-grain foods on blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk markers in healthy middle-aged persons: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Oct;92(4):733-40.

-Giacco R, Clemente G, Cipriano D, Luongo D, Viscovo D, Patti L, Di Marino L, Giacco A, Naviglio D, Bianchi MA, Ciati R, Brighenti F, Rivellese AA, Riccardi G. Effects of the regular consumption of wholemeal wheat foods on cardiovascular risk factors in healthy people. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2010 Mar;20(3):186-94.

-Kelly SA, Summerbell CD, Brynes A, Whittaker V, Frost G. Wholegrain cereals for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):CD005051.

You can stick to your correlations and biochemical research all you want. In terms of research that looks at the practicality of eating a realistic amount of whole grains for healthy human beings, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH GRAINS. To say otherwise is to take the side that the science is overwhelmingly against, and also has zero science to support its claims.

Tu quoque. Most of these studies don't meet your own criteria for scientific validity in that the number of participants is insufficient (31 and 15 of studies picked at random to review), and the duration measured in weeks, not months. It would be helpful if you would provide links, unless you just copy and pasted from http://smarthealth.tumblr.com/post/6008311166/an-in-depth-look-at-paleo

While you may object to improved health claimed by individuals following a paleo diet, described as meat/poultry/fish, vegetables, fruit, nuts, and specific oils--and eschewing grains, corn, soy, dairy etc., you cannot deny that there is a growing population who suffer from celiac, and research on its cause is still underway. It's treatment is clear: no grains, regardless of how 'whole' they are.

Some information about celiac:
Portion from "Opening Pandora's Box: The Critical Role of Wheat Lectin in Human Disease"
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/page/dark-side-wheat-new-perspectives-celiac-disease-wheat-intolerance-sayer-ji

Despite common misconceptions, monogenic diseases, or diseases that result from errors in the nucleotide sequence of a single gene are exceedingly rare. Perhaps only 1% of all diseases fall within this category, and Celiac disease is not one of them. In fact, following the completion of the Human Genome Project (HGP) in 2003 it is no longer accurate to say that our genes “cause” disease, any more than it is accurate to say that DNA is sufficient to account for all the proteins in our body. Despite initial expectations, the HGP revealed that there are only 30,000-35,000 genes in human DNA (genome), rather than the 100,000 + believed necessary to encode the 100,000 + proteins found in the human body (proteome).
The “blueprint” model of genetics: one gene → one protein → one cellular behavior, which was once the holy grail of biology, has now been supplanted by a model of the cell where epigenetic factors (literally: “beyond the control of the gene”) are primary in determining how DNA will be interpreted, translated and expressed. A single gene can be used by the cell to express a multitude of proteins and it is not the DNA itself that determines how or what genes will be expressed. Rather, we must look to the epigenetic factors to understand what makes a liver cell different from a skin cell or brain cell. All of these cells share the exact same 3 billion base pairs that make up our DNA code, but it is the epigenetic factors, e.g. regulatory proteins and post-translational modifications, that make the determination as to which genes to turn on and which to silence, resulting in each cell’s unique phenotype. Moreover, epigenetic factors are directly and indirectly influenced by the presence or absence of key nutrients in the diet, as well as exposures to chemicals, pathogens and other environmental influences.

What all of this means for CD is that the genetic susceptibility locus, HLA DQ, does not determine the exact clinical outcome of the disease. Instead of being the cause, if the HLA genes are activated, they are a consequence of the disease process. Thus, we may need to shift our epidemiological focus from viewing this as a classical “disease” involving a passive subject controlled by aberrant genes, to viewing it as an expression of a natural, protective response to the ingestion of something that the human body was not designed to consume.

If we view celiac disease not as an unhealthy response to a healthy food, but as a healthy response to an unhealthy food, classical CD symptoms like diarrhea may make more sense. Diarrhea can be the body’s way to reduce the duration of exposure to a toxin or pathogen, and villous atrophy can be the body’s way of preventing the absorption and hence, the systemic effects of chronic exposure to wheat.

I believe we would be better served by viewing the symptoms of CD as expressions of bodily intelligence rather than deviance. We must shift the focus back to the disease trigger, which is wheat itself.

People with celiac may actually have an advantage over the apparently unafflicted because those who are “non-symptomatic” and whose wheat intolerance goes undiagnosed or misdiagnosed because they lack the classical symptoms and may suffer in ways that are equally or more damaging, but expressed more subtly, or in distant organs. Within this view celiac disease would be redefined as a protective (healthy?) response to exposure to an inappropriate substance, whereas “asymptomatic” ingestion of the grain with its concomitant “out of the intestine” and mostly silent symptoms, would be considered the unhealthy response insofar as it does not signal in an obvious and acute manner that there is a problem with consuming wheat.

It is possible that celiac disease represents both an extreme reaction to a global, species-specific intolerance to wheat that we all share in varying degrees. CD symptoms may reflect the body’s innate intelligence when faced with the consumption of a substance that is inherently toxic. Let me illustrate this point using Wheat Germ Agglutinin (WGA), as an example.

WGA is glycoprotein classified as a lectin and is known to play a key role in kidney pathologies, such as IgA nephropathy. In the article: “Do dietary lectins cause disease?” the Allergist David L J Freed points out that WGA binds to “glomerular capillary walls, mesangial cells and tubules of human kidney and (in rodents) binds IgA and induces IgA mesangial deposits,” indicating that wheat consumption may lead to kidney damage in susceptible individuals. Indeed, a study from the Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research in Milan Italy published in 2007 in the International Journal of Cancer looked at bread consumption and the risk of kidney cancer. They found that those who consumed the most bread had a 94% higher risk of developing kidney cancer compared to those who consumed the least bread. Given the inherently toxic effect that WGA may have on kidney function, it is possible that in certain genetically predisposed individuals (e.g. HLA-DQ2/DQ8) the body – in its innate intelligence – makes an executive decision: either continue to allow damage to the kidneys (or possibly other organs) until kidney failure and rapid death result, or launch an autoimmune attack on the villi to prevent the absorption of the offending substance which results in a prolonged though relatively malnourished life. This is the explanation typically given for the body’s reflexive formation of mucous following exposure to certain highly allergenic or potentially toxic foods, e.g. dairy products, sugar, etc? The mucous coats the offending substance, preventing its absorption and facilitating safe elimination via the gastrointestinal tract. From this perspective the HLA-DQ locus of disease susceptibility in the celiac is not simply activated but utilized as a defensive adaptation to continual exposure to a harmful substance. In those who do not have the HLA-DQ locus, an autoimmune destruction of the villi will not occur as rapidly, and exposure to the universally toxic effects of WGA will likely go unabated until silent damage to distant organs leads to the diagnosis of a disease that is apparently unrelated to wheat consumption.

Loss of kidney function may only be the “tip of the iceberg,” when it comes to the possible adverse effects that wheat proteins and wheat lectin can generate in the body. If kidney cancer is a likely possibility, then other cancers may eventually be linked to wheat consumption as well. This correlation would fly in the face of globally sanctioned and reified assumptions about the inherent benefits of wheat consumption. It would require that we suspend cultural, socio-economic, political and even religious assumptions about its inherent benefits. In many ways, the reassessment of the value of wheat as a food requires a William Boroughs-like moment of shocking clarity when we perceive “in a frozen moment….what is on the end of every fork.” Let’s take a closer look at what is on the end of our forks.

freerange

Your diatribe here has served no purpose. None. What were you trying to accomplish with that paragraph of nothingness? Yeah evolution is valid, but you assume that we HAVE to eat a certain way because of it?

Now you’re grasping at straws, no one said anyone HAD to eat this way, we have only asserted that we believe this to be the optimal diet for most people, nothing more or less.

mynameisuntz

Tu quoque. Most of these studies don't meet your own criteria for scientific validity in that the number of participants is insufficient (31 and 15 of studies picked at random to review), and the duration measured in weeks, not months.

Having 15-31 participants isn't insufficient, simply not as good. It'd be nice to have a larger N, undoubtedly, but considering the external validity surrounding research on whole grains, the need for a giant N diminishes.

Not sure how tu quoque is relevant here. Whole grains HAS clinical research; paleo has none to even critique. I'm not being hypocritical.

While you may object to improved health claimed by individuals following a paleo diet, described as meat/poultry/fish, vegetables, fruit, nuts, and specific oils--and eschewing grains, corn, soy, dairy etc., you cannot deny that there is a growing population who suffer from celiac, and research on its cause is still underway. It's treatment is clear: no grains, regardless of how 'whole' they are.

Some information about celiac:
Portion from "Opening Pandora's Box: The Critical Role of Wheat Lectin in Human Disease"
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/page/dark-side-wheat-new-perspectives-celiac-disease-wheat-intolerance-sayer-ji

I don't know about the growing number of people suffering from celiac's. Could it simply be due to increase in population? I'll assume that's been controlled for. Either way, not going to draw cause/effect assumptions from correlation.

Despite common misconceptions, monogenic diseases, or diseases that result from errors in the nucleotide sequence of a single gene are exceedingly rare. Perhaps only 1% of all diseases fall within this category, and Celiac disease is not one of them. In fact, following the completion of the Human Genome Project (HGP) in 2003 it is no longer accurate to say that our genes “cause” disease, any more than it is accurate to say that DNA is sufficient to account for all the proteins in our body. Despite initial expectations, the HGP revealed that there are only 30,000-35,000 genes in human DNA (genome), rather than the 100,000 + believed necessary to encode the 100,000 + proteins found in the human body (proteome).
The “blueprint” model of genetics: one gene → one protein → one cellular behavior, which was once the holy grail of biology, has now been supplanted by a model of the cell where epigenetic factors (literally: “beyond the control of the gene”) are primary in determining how DNA will be interpreted, translated and expressed. A single gene can be used by the cell to express a multitude of proteins and it is not the DNA itself that determines how or what genes will be expressed. Rather, we must look to the epigenetic factors to understand what makes a liver cell different from a skin cell or brain cell. All of these cells share the exact same 3 billion base pairs that make up our DNA code, but it is the epigenetic factors, e.g. regulatory proteins and post-translational modifications, that make the determination as to which genes to turn on and which to silence, resulting in each cell’s unique phenotype. Moreover, epigenetic factors are directly and indirectly influenced by the presence or absence of key nutrients in the diet, as well as exposures to chemicals, pathogens and other environmental influences.

Could have just said nature vs. nurture.

What all of this means for CD is that the genetic susceptibility locus, HLA DQ, does not determine the exact clinical outcome of the disease. Instead of being the cause, if the HLA genes are activated, they are a consequence of the disease process. Thus, we may need to shift our epidemiological focus from viewing this as a classical “disease” involving a passive subject controlled by aberrant genes, to viewing it as an expression of a natural, protective response to the ingestion of something that the human body was not designed to consume.

Could have just said nature via nurture.

If we view celiac disease not as an unhealthy response to a healthy food, but as a healthy response to an unhealthy food, classical CD symptoms like diarrhea may make more sense. Diarrhea can be the body’s way to reduce the duration of exposure to a toxin or pathogen, and villous atrophy can be the body’s way of preventing the absorption and hence, the systemic effects of chronic exposure to wheat.

Understood, but it still doesn't sit on evidence of any kind. Why is CD still so relatively rare after thousands of years of eating grain?

Teemo

It's clear you have no stance you stand by. And yes, the evolution of a species to dominance over a planet is science, valid science . Along with all the other species surviving and often thriving within an ecosystem that has no intelligent being screwing with it. Science is also the studies over the years on remaining hunter gather societies and their health. Even those that thrive on a lot of fat, and saturated fat on top of it. Government/Business(money) is the sheep herder. Citizens are the sheep. Do you want to eat the best you can or do you want to be a sheep putting your money in the sheep herders pocket?

Clearly, if you aren't following paleo you're a sheep. Sheep!! Baaaaaa!

Though if you're espousing this correlational pseudo-science you should fairly note that the many thousands of years when mankind was "eating paleo" were marked by brutal and primitive behavior while it was during the post-agriculture evolution of agrarian societies that man made the greatest intellectual and technological leaps.

Guess it was due to the grains, huh?

mynameisuntz

Now you’re grasping at straws, no one said anyone HAD to eat this way, we have only asserted that we believe this to be the optimal diet for most people, nothing more or less.

The implication is we HAVE to eat this way if we want to achieve optimal health. I know no one is holding a gun up to my head and saying, "eat paleo." When I say "HAVE" I mean in terms of being as healthy as possible. Figured that was obvious...

mynameisuntz

Though if you're espousing this correlational pseudo-science you should fairly note that the many thousands of years when mankind was "eating paleo" were marked by brutal and primitive behavior while it was during the post-agriculture evolution of agrarian societies that man made the greatest intellectual and technological leaps.

Guess it was due to the grains, huh?

I laughed.

Teemo

I laughed.

In the interest of full disclosure I am currently eating a dinner that is mostly paleo :happy:

freerange

And speaking of claims, I would like to see the scientific study showing grains are beneficial for you,,,,,,,,,,,,, compared to not eating grains.

Funny, I don't remember making that claim. I'll make the claim that eating grains are not detrimental to health, but are at worst neutral to health.
[/quote]

Wasn’t talking about any claims you made, you need to stop assuming I’m talking about you all the time

The claims and probably all the “studies” you posted are that grains help this, or help that, and usually they say something about how whole grains are good for you. All these claims are based on comparisons between a “healthy” diet including grains (again normally whole grains) and the standard diet. I will give you that. Whole grains are probably health-er than white flour. But that still does not mean they are healthy-er than a diet without grains, now does it? That is what I want to see, I want to see from YOU a study that grains, whole or otherwise, are more beneficial than a diet without grains.

Speaking of proof, what happen to BCottes or whatever their handle is, and the proof that the Paleo crowd is the instigators of these holier then thou threads? LOL

freerange

It's clear you have no stance you stand by. And yes, the evolution of a species to dominance over a planet is science, valid science . Along with all the other species surviving and often thriving within an ecosystem that has no intelligent being screwing with it. Science is also the studies over the years on remaining hunter gather societies and their health. Even those that thrive on a lot of fat, and saturated fat on top of it. Government/Business(money) is the sheep herder. Citizens are the sheep. Do you want to eat the best you can or do you want to be a sheep putting your money in the sheep herders pocket?

Clearly, if you aren't following paleo you're a sheep. Sheep!! Baaaaaa!

Though if you're espousing this correlational pseudo-science you should fairly note that the many thousands of years when mankind was "eating paleo" were marked by brutal and primitive behavior while it was during the post-agriculture evolution of agrarian societies that man made the greatest intellectual and technological leaps.

Guess it was due to the grains, huh?

Like the atomic bomb?

mynameisuntz

In the interest of full disclosure I am currently eating a dinner that is mostly paleo :happy:

You could smoke a pack of cigarettes and take 5 hard hits to the head, and paleo would cancel the negative effects of both. Because, people who eat paleo cure cancer and Parkinson's. Just something to consider!

Wasn’t talking about any claims you made, you need to stop assuming I’m talking about you all the time

Fair enough. I clearly misinterpreted.

The claims and probably all the “studies” you posted are that grains help this, or help that, and usually they say something about how whole grains are good for you. All these claims are based on comparisons between a “healthy” diet including grains (again normally whole grains) and the standard diet. I will give you that. Whole grains are probably health-er than white flour. But that still does not mean they are healthy-er than a diet without grains, now does it? That is what I want to see, I want to see from YOU a study that grains, whole or otherwise, are more beneficial than a diet without grains.

I don't have to prove that because I never made that claim. I believe that grains are not harmful, that is the claim I stated and support, and I have provided evidence to support that claim.

Teemo

Funny, I don't remember making that claim. I'll make the claim that eating grains are not detrimental to health, but are at worst neutral to health.

That's a fair claim, btw. And fully supported.

The claims and probably all the “studies” you posted are that grains help this, or help that, and usually they say something about how whole grains are good for you. All these claims are based on comparisons between a “healthy” diet including grains (again normally whole grains) and the standard diet. I will give you that. Whole grains are probably health-er than white flour. But that still does not mean they are healthy-er than a diet without grains, now does it? That is what I want to see, I want to see from YOU a study that grains, whole or otherwise, are more beneficial than a diet without grains.

The problem with that stance is that, in regard to the matter of scientific support, the burden of proof is on paleo dieters to show that their paleo diet is BETTER than a diet with grains. Not the reverse...

"My diet is better... prove it's not!"

Might as well claim the existence of unicorns. (Without meaning to be facetious.)