Let's talk about...the Paleo Diet
Replies
-
The key word was "moderation" what is moderation? Once a month, once a year, once a week?
In such quantities as you are able to meet your body's nutritional requirements while still hitting your target caloric intake as well.0 -
oh you're clear all right, you tried to relate your eating 8 pounds of meat to being paleo, and it's not even close. I guessing you realize this, and this is the reason you won't tell us what else you ate during this period. Paleo isn't just one meal, it's a lifestyle.
*sigh
I was making a point that it's possible to overeat even on Paleo, which you admitted was true. I wasn't trying to say I was eating Paleo or that I follow that diet, just that it could be done under the 'Paleo' constraint. As I had already mentioned, it's very common to hear someone say 'and I can eat as much as I want and still lose weight' regarding their diet which is bogus.
It's possible to overeat on any diet, depending on the person it may be harder to do on certain diets than others, but it's still possible. Whatever lifestyle you're living doesn't change the law of thermodynamics. Whether you're on Paleo, or the cabbage soup diet, or HCG, or whatever weird crap you can think up, calories are STILL a concern, period. Even if you personally don't count calories, they still matter and will dictate whether you lose weight, stay the same, or gain weight.
That was my WHOLE point. I gave a scenario where, for a given meal, it was possible to overeat and stay within the Paleo paradigm. Would I eat that same meal every single day forever? No, but there are scenarios where you can consume an excess of calories while on the Paleo diet. Doing that too often would result in weight gain. If you eat too many calories, you will gain weight, regardless of if those calories happen to come from a food source that make you feel good about yourself or not. That's IT. I'm not wrong in that regard. You really didn't get my point.
You've claimed studies that Paleo is superior, but won't stand by to them being scrutinized. You claim anecdotal evidence as the basis for your argument, but can't get across the simple question: Given comparable caloric and nutritional intake, is a strictly-Paleo diet better than other dieting tactics?
That isn't a hit job on Paleo. It simply gives people more options. If there is no measurable difference between Paleo and other dieting techniques, someone who really likes foods that are disallowed by the Paleo paradigm could opt for a different diet that has the same nutritional merit. If they can give up those foods, they might choose Paleo if they find fewer issues with hunger, for example.
You're fixating on minor points and making large assumptions about other's intentions without actually getting clarification from them. I honestly have nothing against Paleo, I just think it's as good as other diet paradigms rather than the best of all of them. What is extremely aggravating is to say the same thing over and over and OVER and still have the point missed.
If you really want to know what I ate fine: I had a diet extremely heavy in meat. Beef, pork, fish, and chicken was easily 60% of my calorie intake, if not more. After that bread and cheese took up the large majority. Following that was fruits, then junk food like ice cream and alcohol and candy, and lastly vegetables. I recognize it was an unhealthy diet, but to say it wasn't the meat's fault is completely missing the point I was trying to make.
Here we go. The classic strawman used against low-carbers, that we all believe you cannot gain weight on a low-carb diet because calories don't matter. Nobody who has spent enough time researching the diet actually believes that. What we ALWAYS mean when we say "eat as much as you want", is that you can eat to "satiety" and it will still lead to a caloric deficit. I don't know why this is an unimportant benefit for anyone who wants to lose weight.
I've always believed the key to weight loss is managing appetite, not manual calorie intervention. Appetite controls calories which control weight loss. You don't want to leave your appetite unsatisfied by artificially reducing calories, otherwise you will eventually cave in.
So what if you want to bulk and put on weight? You are saying doing Paleo wouldn't work because you will be full and still in a deficit, and you cannot add lean muscle mass while in a deficit.
bulking up is unnatural, therefore it would require unnatural dietary intervention. Besides, you could even on Paleo manually overeat and create a surplus, but its not as easy as if you eat other kinds of foods.
Wouldn't losing weight be just as in not more unnatural then gaining? For losing weight to be healthy, you would have had to gain at some point, or you wouldn't have fat to lose. Shouldn't the goal be to be to ingest at maintenance levels, and be hungry if under and overfull if over? I also though back in Paleo times that people gained weight when food was available and lost when it was scarce.
If you are overweight, then the natural thing to do is lose weight. That is why people go on low-carb/paleo and lose weight effortlessly for a while. But usually people eventually hit some kind of plateau. I hit a plateau myself on low-carb once I lost about 15 lbs and am now at about 15% body fat. So if I wanted to become ripped, I know I'd have to make some dietary adjustments. I don't expect anyone to become ripped eating like a primitive caveman without paying too much attention to macros or calories.
Oh and my understanding is that carbohydrates are largely seasonal and people would fatten up on them to prepare for the winter.0 -
key word was "some" and was merely trying to give an answer to her question.
Haven't read the whole thread but from what I've read on this and other threads is that some Paleo people seem to think that we should all eat this way and preach that all grains are bad. So, this open up the debate/controversy. For the most part, people really don't care what others eat.Well its a good thing you were able to educate yourself on the subject. I shouldn't have used the term "bad" in my other post. I mean controversial. Why all the controversy over something that focuses on un-processed natural food?
There is no shortage of people saying you *need* to eat lots of carbs, or that it is *unnecessary* to cut them. Its really not up to them to determine what is needed or what is necessary without knowing about the individual person's health. So it goes both ways. Personally I've witnessed more people discouraging low-carb dieting than people actually promoting Paleo dieting.0 -
The key word was "moderation" what is moderation? Once a month, once a year, once a week?
In such quantities as you are able to meet your body's nutritional requirements while still hitting your target caloric intake as well.
Yes I agree with you, there is also no quantity for "worthless crap" in the body.
And can you prove that, if you're able to meet nutritional needs and caloric targets, the 'worthless crap' is bad for you? That's basically what the question is. If you're getting the same nutrition what does it matter?0 -
This will just lead to a loop. Going back to concentration. What is moderation? If I smoke a cigarette once in my life, There will probably be no negative side effects, if I do it once a week, I will be at greater risk, once a day, even more.
Are grains bad for us? I don't know. Just because there is little evidence for grains or against grains doesn't mean they aren't harmful. A good example are the drugs that have been taken off the market. there was very little studies at the time, so people took them and many got ill.
Just because there is no evidence saying it's bad, doesn't mean it's good.
That's fair, but couldn't the same be said of any type of food? Even stuff that's been researched to death they come out with new evidence all the time.
I don't think it leads to a loop in that moderation caps at a certain point since people cannot eat infinite calories and stay healthy. So for each person there is a theoretical maximum amount of grains or whatever that that person could eat and still meet their other nutritional needs while staying within their calorie target.
With that said, I haven't seen a study (and I'll be the first to admit that a study like that would would be very difficult to execute) that shows that someone eating as much grain (since that's what you mentioned) as possible while keeping up with their other nutritional needs is necessarily less healthy than the other person who replaces that grain with other food.
Obviously if you consider grains to be 'crap' that potentially any amount would be too much to eat, but I don't think a case has been made yet that would convince me that grains are bad for me (I do try to keep an open mind about these things, although I was more on the skeptical side in this instance)0 -
Haven't read the whole thread but from what I've read on this and other threads is that some Paleo people seem to think that we should all eat this way and preach that all grains are bad. So, this open up the debate/controversy. For the most part, people really don't care what others eat.Well its a good thing you were able to educate yourself on the subject. I shouldn't have used the term "bad" in my other post. I mean controversial. Why all the controversy over something that focuses on un-processed natural food?
And some people think everybody should eat low carb/high fat, and some people think that everybody should eat low fat/high carb, and some people think everybody should eat vegan, and some people think everybody should eat vegetarian, and some people think everybody should eat pescatarian, and some people who think that everybody should eat frozen Weight Watchers meals, and on and on, ad infinitum.
There are zealots who think everybody should eat the way they eat doing every kind of eating plan imaginable. I don't see most people on any eating plan doing this, just some people. And I don't see Paleo eaters being zealots in greater numbers than those on any other eating plan either.
I do learn a lot from these types of discussions. Example, after reading up about Paleo a bit, we do buy some of our meat in bulk from a ranch that grows free-range, grass-fed cattle and incorporate that into our diet quite a bit because I do think it's healthier than hormone-filled, grain-fed beef. However, I also go to restaurants and eat whatever beef they have and don't worry about the source. We also buy other cuts of beef at the store, no matter the source, if we want a certain cut that we have run out of in our freezer. So, more often than not, we're eating what I believe is a healthier type of beef but I'm not a fanatic about only eating that type of beef. And I appreciate about learning more about beef, how the cows are fed, etc., so I can incorporate those healthier choices in my diet when feasible without fretting about it if I eat beef that isn't. It's all about balance, imho.
But I like my dairy. I don't drink a lot of milk but enjoy it when I do. I like my yogurt and cheese and my occasional sour cream and cream cheese. None of this is a big part of my calorie intake but I eat it. So I would find it hard to follow Paleo if for no other reason that I like dairy (although it sounds like some Paleo eaters still eat some, so maybe that's neither here nor there).
Anyway, I think we can all learn from those doing other kinds of eating plans, adopt the things within them if something in them appeals to us, or totally ignore their ideas. Whatever works. But it's still interesting to learn about something different even if I choose not to use it myself.0 -
This will just lead to a loop. Going back to concentration. What is moderation? If I smoke a cigarette once in my life, There will probably be no negative side effects, if I do it once a week, I will be at greater risk, once a day, even more.
Are grains bad for us? I don't know. Just because there is little evidence for grains or against grains doesn't mean they aren't harmful. A good example are the drugs that have been taken off the market. there was very little studies at the time, so people took them and many got ill.
Just because there is no evidence saying it's bad, doesn't mean it's good.
That's fair, but couldn't the same be said of any type of food? Even stuff that's been researched to death they come out with new evidence all the time.
I don't think it leads to a loop in that moderation caps at a certain point since people cannot eat infinite calories and stay healthy. So for each person there is a theoretical maximum amount of grains or whatever that that person could eat and still meet their other nutritional needs while staying within their calorie target.
With that said, I haven't seen a study (and I'll be the first to admit that a study like that would would be very difficult to execute) that shows that someone eating as much grain (since that's what you mentioned) as possible while keeping up with their other nutritional needs is necessarily less healthy than the other person who replaces that grain with other food.
Obviously if you consider grains to be 'crap' that potentially any amount would be too much to eat, but I don't think a case has been made yet that would convince me that grains are bad for me (I do try to keep an open mind about these things, although I was more on the skeptical side in this instance)
No I am not saying "grains are crap" I honestly don't know. I believe the best for health is to meet macros as have been mentioned and of course micro nutrients too. I believe the thing for optimal health is to eat foods that meet these requirements without any fillers.
A good example is "lactose" do we need it? Nope. there are many many things that we don't need.
What about alcohol, since the body has no stores for it, is it worthless?0 -
What about alcohol, since the body has no stores for it, is it worthless?
0 -
Some of my thoughts, for what they're worth…
I think we all try to do the best we can to balance what we think we should be doing with what we want to be doing. I know I do. I have my own beliefs about what is healthy for me, and then I have my own personal preferences — what tastes good, what makes me feel good, etc. Sometimes those things are at odds with each other, and I have to find a good balance that I can live with. I believe that I should eat more veggies and fruits. I tend to get most of my carbs from grains (oats, whole wheat, rice, barley), and I eat the occasional potato (boiled, not fried). I believe those things are good for me. I realize there are some who would disagree. That’s fine. That’s when I like to ask questions, but not when the answers are in the form of insults and name calling. Nobody learns anything that way, and I think it’s unfortunate when conversations turn into that.0 -
Beautifully said.And some people think everybody should eat low carb/high fat, and some people think that everybody should eat low fat/high carb, and some people think everybody should eat vegan, and some people think everybody should eat vegetarian, and some people think everybody should eat pescatarian, and some people who think that everybody should eat frozen Weight Watchers meals, and on and on, ad infinitum.
There are zealots who think everybody should eat the way they eat doing every kind of eating plan imaginable. I don't see most people on any eating plan doing this, just some people. And I don't see Paleo eaters being zealots in greater numbers than those on any other eating plan either.
I do learn a lot from these types of discussions. Example, after reading up about Paleo a bit, we do buy some of our meat in bulk from a ranch that grows free-range, grass-fed cattle and incorporate that into our diet quite a bit because I do think it's healthier than hormone-filled, grain-fed beef. However, I also go to restaurants and eat whatever beef they have and don't worry about the source. We also buy other cuts of beef at the store, no matter the source, if we want a certain cut that we have run out of in our freezer. So, more often than not, we're eating what I believe is a healthier type of beef but I'm not a fanatic about only eating that type of beef. And I appreciate about learning more about beef, how the cows are fed, etc., so I can incorporate those healthier choices in my diet when feasible without fretting about it if I eat beef that isn't. It's all about balance, imho.
But I like my dairy. I don't drink a lot of milk but enjoy it when I do. I like my yogurt and cheese and my occasional sour cream and cream cheese. None of this is a big part of my calorie intake but I eat it. So I would find it hard to follow Paleo if for no other reason that I like dairy (although it sounds like some Paleo eaters still eat some, so maybe that's neither here nor there).
Anyway, I think we can all learn from those doing other kinds of eating plans, adopt the things within them if something in them appeals to us, or totally ignore their ideas. Whatever works. But it's still interesting to learn about something different even if I choose not to use it myself.0 -
Alcohol in moderation is beneficial. Moderate drinkers are usually healthier, both in their weight, and blood work, than total non-drinkers. Obviously excess consumption is unhealthy, but again, that's where that whole moderation comes in. Seven beers a week is moderate, seven beers a day is not.:drinker:This will just lead to a loop. Going back to concentration. What is moderation? If I smoke a cigarette once in my life, There will probably be no negative side effects, if I do it once a week, I will be at greater risk, once a day, even more.
Are grains bad for us? I don't know. Just because there is little evidence for grains or against grains doesn't mean they aren't harmful. A good example are the drugs that have been taken off the market. there was very little studies at the time, so people took them and many got ill.
Just because there is no evidence saying it's bad, doesn't mean it's good.
That's fair, but couldn't the same be said of any type of food? Even stuff that's been researched to death they come out with new evidence all the time.
I don't think it leads to a loop in that moderation caps at a certain point since people cannot eat infinite calories and stay healthy. So for each person there is a theoretical maximum amount of grains or whatever that that person could eat and still meet their other nutritional needs while staying within their calorie target.
With that said, I haven't seen a study (and I'll be the first to admit that a study like that would would be very difficult to execute) that shows that someone eating as much grain (since that's what you mentioned) as possible while keeping up with their other nutritional needs is necessarily less healthy than the other person who replaces that grain with other food.
Obviously if you consider grains to be 'crap' that potentially any amount would be too much to eat, but I don't think a case has been made yet that would convince me that grains are bad for me (I do try to keep an open mind about these things, although I was more on the skeptical side in this instance)
No I am not saying "grains are crap" I honestly don't know. I believe the best for health is to meet macros as have been mentioned and of course micro nutrients too. I believe the thing for optimal health is to eat foods that meet these requirements without any fillers.
A good example is "lactose" do we need it? Nope. there are many many things that we don't need.
What about alcohol, since the body has no stores for it, is it worthless?
If it's not beneficial, then yes. You going to use your "wine' argument now?0 -
Personal insults, the hallmark of a person who has a really strong argument.exactly. i dont care to get involved really in a debate but when most paleo people say they eat as much as they want...thats what they mean. they eat until they are done. there is no urge to snack and overeat bcause you are getting actual nourishment from the natural foods you are eating. there is no need to measure because your body tells you when it is done. on other diets that are loaded with crap foods with barely any nutrients its easy to over eat because although your calories are high your body is still starving for nutrients.
also, i found a finnish study that determined when a population was given larger ammounts of CLA (a specific lipid) their rates of cancer went down. what has the most dense source of CLA you may ask??? GRASSFED BEEF, which is one of the main components of a true healthy paleo diet. is that enough for you? probably not but good luck sucking on granola bars every two hours because your body is starving for nutrients.
So, basically you're saying that only people who eat Paleo eat grass fed beef? Seriously? You honestly believe that every single person who eats grass fed beef eats a Paleo diet, and that it's impossible for people that don't eat Paleo to eat grass fed beef? That may be the weakest argument I've ever seen.
PEOPLE WHO DON'T EAT A PALEO DIET ARE ALLOWED TO EAT ANY FOODS WE WANT THAT ARE "PALEO APPROVED." It's the Paleo diet that is unnecessarily restrictive on foods with no good basis for doing so. So, picking a random food item that Paleos eat really does not prove in any way how a Paleo diet is superior.
thats not what i implied at all. what i meant was one of the main tennants of the paleo diet is to eat meat from natural grassfed sources. how you got your interpretation just proves you have no common sense in that fat lacking brain. really? the thing about paleo is that its not about restriction. its not a strict diet like atkins or zone or south beach. its just getting your nourishment from natural sources as much as possible. and i understand not eveeryone on paleo can get those types of meats. because they are pricey and hard to find. myself included. i cant always afford that. but it doesnt mean im restricted. how can a diet thats based on eating whole natural foods cause such controversy???
Fat lacking brain, huh? Nice of you to make random insults about someone who you have no clue about.
Of course, based on your definition, I guess I eat Paleo as well, although, milk and cheese aren't allowed on the Paleo diet. The whole grain bread I bake probably isn't, either. What you call "Paleo," is what most people call "eating sensibly." Paleo is a whole different animal. No processed foods (I make everything myself from scratch, even my mayo, mustard, tomato sauces, and pasta,) no dairy, no grains, no beans, no alcohol, no sugar, and no cooking oils. Since I consume all of those as part of my diet, I don't consider myself Paleo, since it's way too restrictive in my mind for a healthy, balanced food intake.
Look you insulted me first honey. I don't care what you think you know about paleo but you obviously can't wrap that granola crunching mind around the fact that its not about restrictions. You can use cooking oils just not ones that are chemically processed. And all the other misconceptions about paleo you are throwing around just prove you have no clue what you are talking about. So I font care to type anymore because I know common sense will fall of deaf ears. Good luck on your diet.
Gee, so I guess the Paleo Diet book is wrong? That's where I got the information from. Again, I've been attacking your argument, I haven't insulted you personally, so maybe you should try something other than ad hominem attacks, they really don't do anything to make you look intelligent or well versed, nor do they do anything to back up your argument.
Here:
http://altmed.creighton.edu/paleodiet/Foodlist.html
http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/paleodietcavemandiet/a/paleoforbidden.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
http://thepaleodiet.com/faq
If I'm throwing around "misconceptions" it's because apparently the Paleo diet itself is throwing around misconceptions. It seems no two "paleos" can agree on what the Paleo diet actually is. Eat lots of saturated fat, eat little saturated fat, alcohol is ok, alcohol isn't ok, etc, etc.
Of course, it's always interesting that the common theme in Paleo seems to be low carb, but the actual Paleolithic diet more closely resembles the Mediterranean Diet, macronutrient-wise, not low carb. "Paleo" is just a buzz word that people are throwing around to be trendy and sell books, when you actually research it, it really doesn't mean anything.0 -
That's exactly what I have been trying to get through to you people! It's not a set thing. Some people have put their spin on it at marketed different plans. But its really just about eating foods that occur in nature. That's it. Where some people draw the line depends on how strict they want to be or what they feel is right. You people are the ones getting bung up on the name and specifications when there really aren't any. And you weren't questioning my post you were trying to twist what o was saying into some ludacris interpretation to try and make a point that you don't even have.0
-
That's exactly what I have been trying to get through to you people! It's not a set thing. Some people have put their spin on it at marketed different plans. But its really just about eating foods that occur in nature. That's it. Where some people draw the line depends on how strict they want to be or what they feel is right. You people are the ones getting bung up on the name and specifications when there really aren't any. And you weren't questioning my post you were trying to twist what o was saying into some ludacris interpretation to try and make a point that you don't even have.
I have kept saying it is a template to find what works with ones' individual body. No one wants to listen.
As long as it is whole, natural foods and not eating the inflammatory foods then it is ok to eat if it works for your individual body.0 -
Why is it so hard for them to grasp that concept? I just don't understand. You are right they just don't want to listen. For what reason who knows.0
-
Why is it so hard for them to grasp that concept? I just don't understand. You are right they just don't want to listen. For what reason who knows.
If you reread the OP, it was looking at if the exclusion of certain foods (so called non paleo) would yield any extra improvements in blood markers of health, weight loss or athletic performance holding calories and macros constant and if there were, what evidence is there to support that. In the same post it said that eating mostly whole, nutrient dense foods is the way to go. For some reason you seem to think people are arguing against eating mostly whole nutrient dense foods.0 -
Why is it so hard for them to grasp that concept? I just don't understand. You are right they just don't want to listen. For what reason who knows.
Mostly because no one wants to grasp the truth that legumes, lentils and grains can be highly inflammatory if they are not sprouted and eaten that way.
That is where I at least admire vegans and vegetarians. Most do grasp that concept where these inflammatory foods are concerned.0 -
Why is it so hard for them to grasp that concept? I just don't understand. You are right they just don't want to listen. For what reason who knows.
Not sure why the reading comprehension is so terrible in this thread, but if you reread the OP, it was looking at if the exclusion of certain foods (so called non paleo) would yield any extra improvements in blood markers of health, weight loss or athletic performance holding calories and macros constant and if there were, what evidence is there to support that. In the same post it said that eating mostly whole, nutrient dense foods is the way to go. For some reason you seem to think people are arguing against eating mostly whole nutrient dense foods.
How deep do you want to go? There are different types of carbs, protien's, fats, sugars... etc. just holding macros constant doesn't mean much. What about micro nutrients, phyto nutrients? this is where it comes apart.
I agree, and we'd expect the diet that excludes the "non paleo" foods would be more nutrient dense. So what differences on the parameters i mentioned would there be if let's say the non paleo group ate some oatmeal, or bread or beans etc etc.0 -
Blood pH is held constant. The type of food that passes through your digestive system has no bearing on it, barring a major acute overdose of an extremely acidic or alkaline food.
Also, having too high a blood pH is just as deadly as having too low a blood pH. Blood pH is maintained between 7.35 and 7.45. Anything above or below that can be fatal. So if eating too many acids can be dangerous, eating too many bases can be just as dangerous.
As it is, neither one makes a difference, again, talking about moderate eating, and not acute overdoses, as the body is constantly processing and buffering the pH level, through the kidneys and lungs.
Also, your chart is on acidic and alkaline foods is completely wrong. It shows tomatoes as alkaline, when they are acidic, and oranges are also acidic, but your chart lists them as alkaline, flour, which your chart lists as "most acid" is actually neutral, with a pH of 6.8. Milk and ice cream also has a pH of about 6.8, and your chart lists it as "most acid."0 -
I think the specific pH of any food you eat is irrelevant. Stomach acid is more acidic than any food you will eat. Food pH has no impact at all on health or well being. In fact, if acidic foods are so bad, why are all the essentials we need to eat acids? Amino acids, fatty acids, ascorbic acid (aka Vitamin C,) etc.Blood pH is held constant. The type of food that passes through your digestive system has no bearing on it, barring a major acute overdose of an extremely acidic or alkaline food.
Also, having too high a blood pH is just as deadly as having too low a blood pH. Blood pH is maintained between 7.35 and 7.45. Anything above or below that can be fatal. So if eating too many acids can be dangerous, eating too many bases can be just as dangerous.
As it is, neither one makes a difference, again, talking about moderate eating, and not acute overdoses, as the body is constantly processing and buffering the pH level, through the kidneys and lungs.
Also, your chart is on acidic and alkaline foods is completely wrong. It shows tomatoes as alkaline, when they are acidic, and oranges are also acidic, but your chart lists them as alkaline, flour, which your chart lists as "most acid" is actually neutral, with a pH of 6.8. Milk and ice cream also has a pH of about 6.8, and your chart lists it as "most acid."
I'll just agree with you about the blood pH, no need to get off track in to buffering systems. A pH too high or too low isn't good, as you said. That chart could be wrong about high about ice cream. 6.8 does seem high for ice cream. With out talking about the blood, do you think consuming quantities of acid are beneficial to health?
ETA: Yes blood pH is held constant, but how if it starts to get acidic? It doesn't happen by magic. It uses bodily resources to buffer the acid. this goes back to "why stress a system if it's not necessary" and what happens if it's chronically stressed?
Also, to answer your last part, you're talking about stressing it by acidifying it, but you're ignoring the fact that alkalizing it is just as dangerous and stressful. A pH of 7.5 can be just as dangerous as a pH of 7.3. And again, individual foods do not have ANY effect on blood pH levels.0 -
Can you blame people for being confused? For not understanding that when you say "eat as much as you want" that what you mean — ALWAYS — is something different?
Nope, there are a lot of dense folks out there0 -
heres some more studies for you:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract
http://www.ajcn.org/content/80/5/1102.full
The starter of this thread already knows saturated fat isn't all that bad. And he created this thread to incite Paleo dieters because he already knew there are no studies in existence (at least meaningful studies) that can really answer his initial questions.
You noticed that too.
not hard to spot them anymore is it? 0 -
I think the specific pH of any food you eat is irrelevant. Stomach acid is more acidic than any food you will eat. Food pH has no impact at all on health or well being. In fact, if acidic foods are so bad, why are all the essentials we need to eat acids? Amino acids, fatty acids, ascorbic acid (aka Vitamin C,) etc.Blood pH is held constant. The type of food that passes through your digestive system has no bearing on it, barring a major acute overdose of an extremely acidic or alkaline food.
Also, having too high a blood pH is just as deadly as having too low a blood pH. Blood pH is maintained between 7.35 and 7.45. Anything above or below that can be fatal. So if eating too many acids can be dangerous, eating too many bases can be just as dangerous.
As it is, neither one makes a difference, again, talking about moderate eating, and not acute overdoses, as the body is constantly processing and buffering the pH level, through the kidneys and lungs.
Also, your chart is on acidic and alkaline foods is completely wrong. It shows tomatoes as alkaline, when they are acidic, and oranges are also acidic, but your chart lists them as alkaline, flour, which your chart lists as "most acid" is actually neutral, with a pH of 6.8. Milk and ice cream also has a pH of about 6.8, and your chart lists it as "most acid."
I'll just agree with you about the blood pH, no need to get off track in to buffering systems. A pH too high or too low isn't good, as you said. That chart could be wrong about high about ice cream. 6.8 does seem high for ice cream. With out talking about the blood, do you think consuming quantities of acid are beneficial to health?
ETA: Yes blood pH is held constant, but how if it starts to get acidic? It doesn't happen by magic. It uses bodily resources to buffer the acid. this goes back to "why stress a system if it's not necessary" and what happens if it's chronically stressed?
Also, to answer your last part, you're talking about stressing it by acidifying it, but you're ignoring the fact that alkalizing it is just as dangerous and stressful. A pH of 7.5 can be just as dangerous as a pH of 7.3. And again, individual foods do not have ANY effect on blood pH levels.
I have to disagree with you, if this is the case why do I get canker sores whenever I eat to many tomatoes or oranges?0 -
"The consumption of the mineral-rich bottled water with the Alka-PlexLiquid™ supplement (Akali®, or AK water) was associated with improved acid-base balance (i.e., an alkalization of the blood and urine) and hydration status when consumed under free-living conditions. In contrast, subjects who consumed the placebo bottled water showed no changes over the same period of time. These results indicate that the habitual consumption of AK water may be a valuable nutritional vector for influencing both acid-base balance and hydration status in healthy adults."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3161391/?tool=pmcentrez
Someone pointed out this was funded by a water company, yes it's true "glacier" but they don't use this sales pitch, I am sure they funded it out of curiosity. They don't go around selling "alkalizing water"
http://www.akaliwater.com/
The company that funded the study is in business ONLY to sell their alkalizing water.
As for the study, I don't buy it at all. All the test subjects had blood pH's above the upper alkaline limit to start with, and the study even admitted that the storage method before testing may have raised the pH. So none of them had acidic blood to begin with, the control group had pretty much perfect blood pH levels of 7.40-7.41, while the alkalized water group had pH's that were dangerously alkaline, enough to risk causing alkalemia, which can be dangerous.0 -
I think the specific pH of any food you eat is irrelevant. Stomach acid is more acidic than any food you will eat. Food pH has no impact at all on health or well being. In fact, if acidic foods are so bad, why are all the essentials we need to eat acids? Amino acids, fatty acids, ascorbic acid (aka Vitamin C,) etc.Blood pH is held constant. The type of food that passes through your digestive system has no bearing on it, barring a major acute overdose of an extremely acidic or alkaline food.
Also, having too high a blood pH is just as deadly as having too low a blood pH. Blood pH is maintained between 7.35 and 7.45. Anything above or below that can be fatal. So if eating too many acids can be dangerous, eating too many bases can be just as dangerous.
As it is, neither one makes a difference, again, talking about moderate eating, and not acute overdoses, as the body is constantly processing and buffering the pH level, through the kidneys and lungs.
Also, your chart is on acidic and alkaline foods is completely wrong. It shows tomatoes as alkaline, when they are acidic, and oranges are also acidic, but your chart lists them as alkaline, flour, which your chart lists as "most acid" is actually neutral, with a pH of 6.8. Milk and ice cream also has a pH of about 6.8, and your chart lists it as "most acid."
I'll just agree with you about the blood pH, no need to get off track in to buffering systems. A pH too high or too low isn't good, as you said. That chart could be wrong about high about ice cream. 6.8 does seem high for ice cream. With out talking about the blood, do you think consuming quantities of acid are beneficial to health?
ETA: Yes blood pH is held constant, but how if it starts to get acidic? It doesn't happen by magic. It uses bodily resources to buffer the acid. this goes back to "why stress a system if it's not necessary" and what happens if it's chronically stressed?
Also, to answer your last part, you're talking about stressing it by acidifying it, but you're ignoring the fact that alkalizing it is just as dangerous and stressful. A pH of 7.5 can be just as dangerous as a pH of 7.3. And again, individual foods do not have ANY effect on blood pH levels.
I have to disagree with you, if this is the case why do I get canker sores whenever I eat to many tomatoes or oranges?
I couldn't tell you, canker sores have nothing to do with acids or bases. Citrus is a known cause. Also, celiac and Chron's disease can cause them, as can simply biting your lip or inner cheek. Vitamin b12, zinc, Folic acid, and iron deficiencies can also cause canker sores.0 -
This is ridiculous. And fun. And addictive. Which is ridiculous.
I loves me some internet...0 -
If I'm throwing around "misconceptions" it's because apparently the Paleo diet itself is throwing around misconceptions. It seems no two "paleos" can agree on what the Paleo diet actually is. Eat lots of saturated fat, eat little saturated fat, alcohol is ok, alcohol isn't ok, etc, etc.
So basically the same as any other diet then....except you've *chosen* to take pot shots at this one.
You know as well as everyone else here that EVERY way of eating - whether it's low-fat, low-carb, high-protein, vegan, paleo, vegetarian, low GI etc etc etc has 101 books on the subject each giving their own slant. So do you go around throwing your condescending attitude at every other dieter that nobody can make their mind up about what they're doing? Somehow I doubt it.
Your problem isn't the organic side of Paleo, your problem is the low-carb consequences of it because, let's face it, that's what your *real* issue is isn't it.0 -
I eat 40% carbs, which is lower than Paleo man ate. The only problem I have with the Paleo diet is pretty much the name, as it's NOT anything like what the actual Paleolithic era humans ate. The modern Mediterranean diet is almost identical, nutritionally to an actual Paleolithic Era hunter-gatherer diet. I've never once said there was anything wrong with the diet itself, I take issue with people insisting it's healthier than every other method of eating, because it isn't.If I'm throwing around "misconceptions" it's because apparently the Paleo diet itself is throwing around misconceptions. It seems no two "paleos" can agree on what the Paleo diet actually is. Eat lots of saturated fat, eat little saturated fat, alcohol is ok, alcohol isn't ok, etc, etc.
So basically the same as any other diet then....except you've *chosen* to take pot shots at this one.
You know as well as everyone else here that EVERY way of eating - whether it's low-fat, low-carb, high-protein, vegan, paleo, vegetarian, low GI etc etc etc has 101 books on the subject each giving their own slant. So do you go around throwing your condescending attitude at every other dieter that nobody can make their mind up about what they're doing? Somehow I doubt it.
Your problem isn't the organic side of Paleo, your problem is the low-carb consequences of it because, let's face it, that's what your *real* issue is isn't it.
If the Paleo eaters want to discuss the science, that's what we're here for. So far all I've seen are defensive Paleo eaters blindly insisting that the Paleo diet is the greatest thing ever, and anyone who doesn't blindly believe it is a horrible, uneducated moron who's just out to cruelly bash the diet.0 -
Diets that have the potential to propel people to long life and well being are as varied as the geographical differences where long life is evident. Diet is just the tip of the iceberg and mean little in isolation, sorry paleo's or vegans, but true.
For all you low carb paleo followers that generally believe low carb is synonomous.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2008/08/kitavans-wisdom-from-pacific-islands.htmlOverall, Kitavans possess a resistance to degenerative diseases that is baffling to industrialized societies. Not only is this typical of non-industrial cultures, I believe it represents the natural state of existence for Homo sapiens. Like all other animals, humans are healthy and robust when occupying their preferred ecological niche. Our niche happens to be a particularly broad one, ranging from near-complete carnivory to plant-rich omnivory. But it does not include large amounts of industrial foods.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions