Let's talk about...the Paleo Diet

funkycamper

All of these nutrients are found in things like vegetables and meats so it's not necessary to eat grains to get them.

My question: What nutrients require us to eat grains in order to get them as they can't be obtained from other sources?

And don't say carbs as they can be easily obtained from vegetables, nuts, seeds, etc. which are, I believe, all allowed on most paleo-style plans.

I don't think anyone said that you need to eat grains, the topic at hand was the claim that the crust was nutritionally devoid, not if there were better sources for the nutrients in the crust. I would agree with you that there are better sources for the nutrients, but the crust still has nutrients in it

SideSteal named those three nutrients specifically even though only one, selenium, is probably in the pizza crust naturally and manganese only if the flour was enriched. Phosphorus that we can actually use doesn't even come from grains atll.

So, yes, he did make a specific claim that turns out not to be true. I'd love to hear his thoughts on that and, of course, that bit of misinformation is going to make me skeptical of his other statements.

AntWrig

Here is my problem with low-carb advocates. They all claim carbs are so bad, yet they require a refeed at some point to replenish glycogen levels. Especially if they engage in some form of exercise.

The battle should be against whole grains, not carbs as a whole.

How much of a refeed? I ask because I have weeks where I don't eat many carbs (and actually lose better and feel better the weeks I stay within my target and don't splurge on things like the pasta and breads like I did this past week).

I lift heavy 2x/week, do longer steady-state cardio (an hour or more) about 1x/week, and do HIIT 3x/week. I do this even when I'm not eating more than 80-100 grams/carb daily with no negative impact on my ability to exercise intensely or increase my weights.

If what you're saying is true, then why don't my workouts suffer on the weeks I don't do any kind of carb load?

Do a proper refeed.

Lower your fat intake.
Drop protein down to 1g.
Increase calories via carbs to your maintenance. Let me know how you feel.

AntWrig

I said in that same paragraph that the toppings had some nutrients, but the crust is nutriently devoid.

Selenium, Manganese, phosphorous... are those beneficial?

OK, while I limit my carbs, I still allow enough for some higher carb splurges because, well, I like them, I just don't do well eating them daily for various reasons. On Thursday, I had a great Italian dinner of seafood risotto, salad, garlic bread and a good Merlot and I bought a great loaf of cardamom bread at a bakery on Saturday which I have been enjoying a slice of each day. Also ate a sandwich on Saturday made on sourdough bread. So I'm not an anti-carb zealot.

At the same time, if people feel better, function better, eliminate or alleviate various problems eating no breads, pasta or pizza, I don't really care. If it works for them and they're happy, they can go for it.

That said, what nutrients do we need to eat grains in order to obtain? Per the National Institute of Health, we get those nutrients from the following sources:
*
Selenium
"Plant foods, such as vegetables, are the most common dietary sources of selenium. How much selenium is in the vegetables you eat depends on how much of the mineral was in the soil where the plants grew. Fish, shellfish, red meat, grains, eggs, chicken, liver, and garlic are all good sources of selenium. Meats produced from animals that ate grains or plants found in selenium-rich soil have higher levels of selenium. Brewer's yeast, wheat germ, and enriched breads are also good sources of selenium." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002414.htm

Manganese
"Manganese is a mineral that is found in several foods including nuts, legumes, seeds, tea, whole grains, and leafy green vegetables." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/182.html

Phosphorus
"The main food sources are the protein food groups of meat and milk. A meal plan that provides adequate amounts of calcium and protein also provides an adequate amount of phosphorus. Although whole-grain breads and cereals contain more phosphorus than cereals and breads made from refined flour, this is a storage form of phosphorus called phytin, which is not absorbed by humans. Fruits and vegetables contain only small amounts of phosphorus."
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002424.htm

So, if they got it right, selenium is the only item you listed that is probably found in most pizza crust. Unless the pizza crust is made from whole grains (and I haven't ever seen that but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist), there would be no manganese unless the flour was enriched with it. And the phosphorous in grains is not absorbed by humans.

All of these nutrients are found in things like vegetables and meats so it's not necessary to eat grains to get them.

My question: What nutrients require us to eat grains in order to get them as they can't be obtained from other sources?

And don't say carbs as they can be easily obtained from vegetables, nuts, seeds, etc. which are, I believe, all allowed on most paleo-style plans.

Here is my problem with low-carb advocates. They all claim carbs are so bad, yet they require a refeed at some point to replenish glycogen levels. Especially if they engage in some form of exercise.

The battle should be against whole grains, not carbs as a whole.

Its not just whole grains, most of us think sugar is bad as well. If carbs were just fine, I shouldn't get ravenously hungry just by eating a higher intake of them despite having nothing wrong with me medically and doing plenty of exercise. Yes this isn't scientific and not relevant to the discussion.

Does this include fruits?

kikih64

Todays science, was yesterdays science fiction, and who knows what it will be tomorrow. . . . .

True that!

tigersword

All of these nutrients are found in things like vegetables and meats so it's not necessary to eat grains to get them.

My question: What nutrients require us to eat grains in order to get them as they can't be obtained from other sources?

And don't say carbs as they can be easily obtained from vegetables, nuts, seeds, etc. which are, I believe, all allowed on most paleo-style plans.

I don't think anyone said that you need to eat grains, the topic at hand was the claim that the crust was nutritionally devoid, not if there were better sources for the nutrients in the crust. I would agree with you that there are better sources for the nutrients, but the crust still has nutrients in it

SideSteal named those three nutrients specifically even though only one, selenium, is probably in the pizza crust naturally and manganese only if the flour was enriched. Phosphorus that we can actually use doesn't even come from grains atll.

So, yes, he did make a specific claim that turns out not to be true. I'd love to hear his thoughts on that and, of course, that bit of misinformation is going to make me skeptical of his other statements.

So you find a list of 5 items containing manganese, and decide based on that incredibly limited sample (there are thousands of foods containing manganese, it's one of the most common elements on the planet, and yes, it's in refined white flour,) you decide that a poster's entire contribution of knowledge is suspect? That's incredibly short sighted, especially because your argument has nothing to do with the point he was making, which is that pizza crust does contain nutrients, and is not "nutritionally devoid" as was claimed. Could he have chosen other nutrients? Sure, he most likely chose them at random.

Isolt

The issue with paleo is the exclusion of healthy foods.

Now how are you going to slice that statement? If you're contending that primal eating excludes ALL healthy foods you'd clearly be talking out of your *kitten*. If you're contending that primal eating excludes *some* healthy foods then I'd just toss into the debate that pretty much EVERYONE excludes some healthy foods based on purely on their personal tastes.

My Mother, a pescatarian who eats veg and whole grains until they're coming out of her ears, excludes mushrooms and olives....because she doesn't like them. I exclude swede, anchovies, kidneys and redcurrents. Why? Because I don't like them.

Damning a diet because it excludes grains is simply a load of tosh, unless you're going to show that the person is missing out on all the nutritients they need.

Isolt

Just popping in to point out - probably unnecessarily, but I'm doing it anyway - that those (Acg, sidesteal, LorinaLynn) saying it's okay to eat grains have rocking bodies.

1. Whether your body is 'rocking' or not is entirely subjective. I don't happen to find 6-packs and bulging muscles everywhere in the least bit aesthetically pleasing so, to me, people like Acg are the absolutely antithesis of 'rocking'
2. Having a 'ripped' body is not an indicator that you are the fittest of the herd......some of the fittest people I know are built like racing snakes and do activities like long-distance running, cycling or mountain climbing

Nice to see so much superficiality on the board though.....I guess it's a good mirror to offline life.

AntWrig

The issue with paleo is the exclusion of healthy foods.

Now how are you going to slice that statement? If you're contending that primal eating excludes ALL healthy foods you'd clearly be talking out of your *kitten*. If you're contending that primal eating excludes *some* healthy foods then I'd just toss into the debate that pretty much EVERYONE excludes some healthy foods based on purely on their personal tastes.

My Mother, a pescatarian who eats veg and whole grains until they're coming out of her ears, excludes mushrooms and olives....because she doesn't like them. I exclude swede, anchovies, kidneys and redcurrents. Why? Because I don't like them.

Damning a diet because it excludes grains is simply a load of tosh, unless you're going to show that the person is missing out on all the nutritients they need.

Wait you saying you don't like something is completely different than, a whole group of foods destroying the western civilization. And yes, I have heard and read such things in regards to grains, from Paleo eaters.

AntWrig

Just popping in to point out - probably unnecessarily, but I'm doing it anyway - that those (Acg, sidesteal, LorinaLynn) saying it's okay to eat grains have rocking bodies.

1. Whether your body is 'rocking' or not is entirely subjective. I don't happen to find 6-packs and bulging muscles everywhere in the least bit aesthetically pleasing so, to me, people like Acg are the absolutely antithesis of 'rocking'
2. Having a 'ripped' body is not an indicator that you are the fittest of the herd......some of the fittest people I know are built like racing snakes and do activities like long-distance running, cycling or mountain climbing

Nice to see so much superficiality on the board though.....I guess it's a good mirror to offline life.

You must not be human then. Human beings are very visual and yes, someone who is "ripped" will have more weight in a conversation on anything health, unlike say a cow avatar.

badgerbadger1

The only thing I've learned from the last few pages of this thread is that eating Paleo is highly correlated with angry posting, lack of a sense of humour, and a general void in logic.

Take that, Science!

Sidesteal

SideSteal named those three nutrients specifically even though only one, selenium, is probably in the pizza crust naturally and manganese only if the flour was enriched. Phosphorus that we can actually use doesn't even come from grains atll.

So, yes, he did make a specific claim that turns out not to be true. I'd love to hear his thoughts on that and, of course, that bit of misinformation is going to make me skeptical of his other statements.

That's fair if you're correct. Here's one of many examples that claim those nutrients exist in pizza crust but I'll be the first to admit that I'm no chef.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/268575-nutritional-information-of-pizza/

The point that I was trying to make, that I should have been clear on, is to differentiate at what point someone defines something as nutritionally void. I was pointing out that pizza crust contains nutrients/minerals. If I was incorrect about the specific minerals that I mentioned, I'd welcome you to correct it. The above link contains information on pizza crust but of course, you can certainly question the source if you'd like.

As of now though, you have yet to do anything to prove my statement false.

AntWrig

I said in that same paragraph that the toppings had some nutrients, but the crust is nutriently devoid.

Selenium, Manganese, phosphorous... are those beneficial?

OK, while I limit my carbs, I still allow enough for some higher carb splurges because, well, I like them, I just don't do well eating them daily for various reasons. On Thursday, I had a great Italian dinner of seafood risotto, salad, garlic bread and a good Merlot and I bought a great loaf of cardamom bread at a bakery on Saturday which I have been enjoying a slice of each day. Also ate a sandwich on Saturday made on sourdough bread. So I'm not an anti-carb zealot.

At the same time, if people feel better, function better, eliminate or alleviate various problems eating no breads, pasta or pizza, I don't really care. If it works for them and they're happy, they can go for it.

That said, what nutrients do we need to eat grains in order to obtain? Per the National Institute of Health, we get those nutrients from the following sources:
*
Selenium
"Plant foods, such as vegetables, are the most common dietary sources of selenium. How much selenium is in the vegetables you eat depends on how much of the mineral was in the soil where the plants grew. Fish, shellfish, red meat, grains, eggs, chicken, liver, and garlic are all good sources of selenium. Meats produced from animals that ate grains or plants found in selenium-rich soil have higher levels of selenium. Brewer's yeast, wheat germ, and enriched breads are also good sources of selenium." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002414.htm

Manganese
"Manganese is a mineral that is found in several foods including nuts, legumes, seeds, tea, whole grains, and leafy green vegetables." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/182.html

Phosphorus
"The main food sources are the protein food groups of meat and milk. A meal plan that provides adequate amounts of calcium and protein also provides an adequate amount of phosphorus. Although whole-grain breads and cereals contain more phosphorus than cereals and breads made from refined flour, this is a storage form of phosphorus called phytin, which is not absorbed by humans. Fruits and vegetables contain only small amounts of phosphorus."
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002424.htm

So, if they got it right, selenium is the only item you listed that is probably found in most pizza crust. Unless the pizza crust is made from whole grains (and I haven't ever seen that but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist), there would be no manganese unless the flour was enriched with it. And the phosphorous in grains is not absorbed by humans.

All of these nutrients are found in things like vegetables and meats so it's not necessary to eat grains to get them.

My question: What nutrients require us to eat grains in order to get them as they can't be obtained from other sources?

And don't say carbs as they can be easily obtained from vegetables, nuts, seeds, etc. which are, I believe, all allowed on most paleo-style plans.

Here is my problem with low-carb advocates. They all claim carbs are so bad, yet they require a refeed at some point to replenish glycogen levels. Especially if they engage in some form of exercise.

The battle should be against whole grains, not carbs as a whole.

Do you see me as a low carb advocate? I do believe carbs are important. Just that heavier people are more insulin resistance. I also find myself eating a lot more when i eat carbs. You know how my free days ago.

No, I don't. I also agree with your statement regarding the overweight and insulin resistance.

katiew00t

Just popping in to point out - probably unnecessarily, but I'm doing it anyway - that those (Acg, sidesteal, LorinaLynn) saying it's okay to eat grains have rocking bodies.

1. Whether your body is 'rocking' or not is entirely subjective. I don't happen to find 6-packs and bulging muscles everywhere in the least bit aesthetically pleasing so, to me, people like Acg are the absolutely antithesis of 'rocking'
2. Having a 'ripped' body is not an indicator that you are the fittest of the herd......some of the fittest people I know are built like racing snakes and do activities like long-distance running, cycling or mountain climbing

Nice to see so much superficiality on the board though.....I guess it's a good mirror to offline life.

You must not be human then. Human beings are very visual and yes, someone who is "ripped" will have more weight in a conversation on anything health, unlike say a cow avatar.

:laugh:

acg=ROCKIN'.
cow=not rockin'.

Isolt

You must not be human then. Human beings are very visual and yes, someone who is "ripped" will have more weight in a conversation on anything health, unlike say a cow avatar.

So here you are asserting that:

a) I must not be 'human' because I don't find 6-packs aesthetically pleasing; and
b) An argument can be dismissed the person making it has a cartoon avatar and not their photo

You must be an absolute blast at dinner parties.....I'd certainly hire you for entertainment at one.

beckajw

But, why pick the Paleolithic era? If the reason is to lose weight and avoid the diseases of civilization, why not emulate a Roman peasant? They sure weren't running around with diabetes, AND they got to eat a lot of bread.

Actually they did get diabetes. http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2008/12/17/715/the-history-of-diabetes/
http://www.news-medical.net/health/History-of-Diabetes.aspx

Isolt

acg=ROCKIN'.
cow=not rockin'.

There you go.....now I too am 'rocking'

.And just to elucidate; I don't put photos of myself online. Anywhere. I don't give my real name, nor my location, nor my true age. Anywhere. All I say is that I'm female and British. Now if that means some people here want to dismiss everything I say because 'only ripped people's opinions matter' (:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ), I honestly couldn't care less because it says *far* more about their mentality than it does about mine :bigsmile:

rextcat

bump to read later

momof8munchkins

bumping to come back and read later

Anomalia

I'm not enjoying this...

callmeBAM

You know, wasn't the lifespan of a caveman something ridiculously low like 30 years old?

I'm not sure I want to follow that diet...

You have to be kidding. People died from infected teeth and being mauled by wild animals back then. To directly tie lifespan to diet is plain stupid.

penrbrown

You must not be human then. Human beings are very visual and yes, someone who is "ripped" will have more weight in a conversation on anything health, unlike say a cow avatar.

So here you are asserting that:

a) I must not be 'human' because I don't find 6-packs aesthetically pleasing; and
b) An argument can be dismissed the person making it has a cartoon avatar and not their photo

You must be an absolute blast at dinner parties.....I'd certainly hire you for entertainment at one.

Just so you don't feel all alone. I too do not find hyper muscles and super defined 8-packs (6-packs aren't terrible but 8-packs? *shudder*) attractive. It just doesn't do anything for me. I prefer a body that's a bit softer.

For me, those hard bodies just don't look very comfortable to snuggle up to. Simple as that.

I don't believe those who are fit have more 'weight' in weight loss and/or fitness discussions. The reasons they are fit can be varied. They may know jack all about fitness, despite their physique. In fact, in my experience, those who have tried every diet out there and still haven't lost weight usually have way more practical knowledge then someone who is fit.

Just because we HAVE the knowledge doesn't mean we've put it to use!

penrbrown

You know, wasn't the lifespan of a caveman something ridiculously low like 30 years old?

I'm not sure I want to follow that diet...

You have to be kidding. People died from infected teeth and being mauled by wild animals back then. To directly tie lifespan to diet is plain stupid.

Not necessarily. While some deaths were caused by infected teeth, animal maulings and other such tragedies, some deaths were probably caused by improper diet as well.

I'm not convinced a diet that was good for undeveloped man is good for us now thousands and thousands of years later. If we believe in evolution then we believe the human body has been evolving and that includes the digestive system. What was good for man then isn't necessarily good for modern human bodies now.

fteale

Remember this isn't to unnecessarily bash or praise the Paleo diet but to have an objective discussion about it

But, why pick the Paleolithic era? If the reason is to lose weight and avoid the diseases of civilization, why not emulate a Roman peasant? They sure weren't running around with diabetes, AND they got to eat a lot of bread.

How about a serf in the Middle Ages? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7148534.stm

Perhaps a modern, naan eating Afghan? http://m.npr.org/news/Health/132745785

People say, "well, we didn't evolve to eat [wheat/dairy/whatever]." It doesn't seem like an adequate argument. Paleolithic era people hadn't evolved at that point to read, either, and yet no one is giving that up.

A lot of the antinutrients in grains that people are so alarmed about are actually antioxidants that have beneficial effects, including possible cancer prevention. One example is phytic acid. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142(19850815)56:4<717::AID-CNCR2820560402>3.0.CO;2-4/abstract

I'm not convinced at all that avoiding legumes and grains is unhealthful at all.

THIS! I have asked this before and got no sensible reply at all. WHY the Paleolithic specifically? Why not the Neolithic? Or the Mesolithic? Why not base our diet on Australopithecines?

fteale

You must not be human then. Human beings are very visual and yes, someone who is "ripped" will have more weight in a conversation on anything health, unlike say a cow avatar.

So here you are asserting that:

a) I must not be 'human' because I don't find 6-packs aesthetically pleasing; and
b) An argument can be dismissed the person making it has a cartoon avatar and not their photo

You must be an absolute blast at dinner parties.....I'd certainly hire you for entertainment at one.

Just so you don't feel all alone. I too do not find hyper muscles and super defined 8-packs (6-packs aren't terrible but 8-packs? *shudder*) attractive. It just doesn't do anything for me. I prefer a body that's a bit softer.

For me, those hard bodies just don't look very comfortable to snuggle up to. Simple as that.

I don't believe those who are fit have more 'weight' in weight loss and/or fitness discussions. The reasons they are fit can be varied. They may know jack all about fitness, despite their physique. In fact, in my experience, those who have tried every diet out there and still haven't lost weight usually have way more practical knowledge then someone who is fit.

Just because we HAVE the knowledge doesn't mean we've put it to use!

I am another with no interest in ripped men. I will take advice from someone who is healthy and can run 26 miles more than someone who has big muscles. Big muscles mean nothing except you spend too much time in the gym, IMO. They aren't natural. If they were people wouldn't need to lift lumps of metal to get them.

grinch031

You know, wasn't the lifespan of a caveman something ridiculously low like 30 years old?

I'm not sure I want to follow that diet...

You have to be kidding. People died from infected teeth and being mauled by wild animals back then. To directly tie lifespan to diet is plain stupid.

Not necessarily. While some deaths were caused by infected teeth, animal maulings and other such tragedies, some deaths were probably caused by improper diet as well.

I'm not convinced a diet that was good for undeveloped man is good for us now thousands and thousands of years later. If we believe in evolution then we believe the human body has been evolving and that includes the digestive system. What was good for man then isn't necessarily good for modern human bodies now.

So what diet is good for modern humans? Have we discovered the optimal diet for humans yet? I would say no based on rising obesity rates across the world.

KemaVA

I'm a new fan of the Paleo diet. I dont know a lot about the 'science' for and against it... I just know I feel better. I dont think there will be one rigid way of eating that will work for everyone.

I have tried many different ways to eat. I became a pescatarian years ago because I felt meat made me feel heavy. Last year I tried juicing and then just 'eating raw'. It was hard to keep at that so when I heard of the Paleo diet I thought to give it a try. I was already at a place where I was realizing that my body was not digesting carbs properly. I am also lactose intelorant. There may be others like me that just realize that this way of eating is what THEIR body wants.

fteale

Just leaving this here

Post hoc analysis showed that at week 52 the scores on the POMS subscales of anger-hostility (P = .006), confusion-bewilderment (P = .02), and depression-dejection (P = .05) and the TMDS score (P = .001) were significantly lower in the LF group than in the LC group

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/169/20/1873#IOI90085F2

Love it.

penrbrown

You know, wasn't the lifespan of a caveman something ridiculously low like 30 years old?

I'm not sure I want to follow that diet...

You have to be kidding. People died from infected teeth and being mauled by wild animals back then. To directly tie lifespan to diet is plain stupid.

Not necessarily. While some deaths were caused by infected teeth, animal maulings and other such tragedies, some deaths were probably caused by improper diet as well.

I'm not convinced a diet that was good for undeveloped man is good for us now thousands and thousands of years later. If we believe in evolution then we believe the human body has been evolving and that includes the digestive system. What was good for man then isn't necessarily good for modern human bodies now.

So what diet is good for modern humans? Have we discovered the optimal diet for humans yet? I would say no based on rising obesity rates across the world.

I'm not convinced there are rising obesity rates across the world. Do you have some studies to back that up? (Sorry, I haven't read ALL the pages of this thread. Just the first few and the last few so if there have been studies posted already I missed them).

What is the optimal diet for modern man? There's a big question and honestly I think it depends on the person. As in, each individual human needs to find the diet that is going to work best for their body. What works best for one isn't going to work best for another. There's no such thing as a solution that will work for every individual. We are far too unique for that.

That said, I think we can all agree a diet of merely processed foods is not a good diet.

shanahan_09

yawn

Ditto!

callmeBAM

1. Our digestive processes didn’t evolve to maximize the effectiveness of grain consumption. Just because you can tolerate grains to a certain degree, as just about all of us can, doesn’t mean your body was designed for them or that they’re truly healthy for you.

2. I bet I could find some people with rockin bodies that drink good amounts of vodka, rum, whatever on a regular basis. To some of you, that is empirical evidence that drinking isn't bad for you! Just look at their bodies! I'm sure I don't have to go through the long list of harmful side effects from prolonged and regular alcohol consumption.