Let's talk about...the Paleo Diet

BullDozier

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.

Life span in the paleolithic era was actually higher than the lifespan at the turn of the 20th century. There's a lot more that goes into lifespan data than just diet. Actually, I'd probably guess that diet is a historically insignificant factor in lifespan data, when comparing time frames.

penrbrown

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.

Good points. I, personally, cannot follow any diet that pretty much anyone follows. Due to allergies I can't have dairy, gluten, nuts (tree and peanuts) or chocolate. I've had to figure out eating habits that suit my body and my particular needs. There is no 'optimal' diet out there that fits my needs. It's not so hard to figure out: this makes me feel good, this makes me feel bad.. so I'm going to eat this and not that.

The trick is saying: I'm not going to eat until I'm stuffed... I'm not going to eat just because I'm sad... I'm not going to... etc.

Btw, point 2 made me chuckle.

Acg67

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.

And your evidence for that is?

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.

Yeah, lot's of studies showing how terrible regular consumption of red wine is and last I checked red wine was alcohol

hoya31

Anyone that is REALLY interested in reading why the paleo diet is infinitely better for you than not, read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Primal-Body-Mind-Beyond-Health/dp/1594774137/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331661239&sr=8-1

It really, really will make you think twice (or 100x again) why not to eat grains and legumes. She mentions a lot of studies supporting the diet and if you go to pubmed.com and look up "paleo diet" you will find endless scientific articles positively supporting the paleo diet. Your system will start to work as it is used to with the nutrients it will finally be able to get! I suggest it 100%. You'll ever wonder why you didnt...

Is it easy? Hell no. Is it worth it, definitely yes.

LorinaLynn

I bet I could find some people with rockin bodies that drink good amounts of vodka, rum, whatever on a regular basis.

<-- Yep! Right here! :drinker:

Of course, "good amount" and "regular basis" equals about once a week, which is about the same as my pizza consumption. Since my weekly pizza is going to make me die of cancer in two years, I might as well destroy my liver before then with my moderate consumption of alcohol.

Sidesteal

f you go to pubmed.com and look up "paleo diet" you will find endless scientific articles positively supporting the paleo diet.

I would encourage you to post some of those studies. The purpose of this thread, originally, was to discuss the scientific merit of the diet. If you have any particular studies can you share them?

fteale

Anyone that is REALLY interested in reading why the paleo diet is infinitely better for you than not, read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Primal-Body-Mind-Beyond-Health/dp/1594774137/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331661239&sr=8-1

It really, really will make you think twice (or 100x again) why not to eat grains and legumes. She mentions a lot of studies supporting the diet and if you go to pubmed.com and look up "paleo diet" you will find endless scientific articles positively supporting the paleo diet. Your system will start to work as it is used to with the nutrients it will finally be able to get! I suggest it 100%. You'll ever wonder why you didnt...

Is it easy? Hell no. Is it worth it, definitely yes.

That video on Amazon advertising the book just made me fall off the sofa laughing. Thanks, you just made my day.

scubagoil

I haven't seen any threads attacking vegetarians or vegans... Yet they eliminate what many people consider important.... meat and other animal products.

Years ago they were put down for their way of eating, but now, most people see this as an acceptable choice.

I have to eliminate almost all grains because I am allergic, but if someone hasn't been diagnosed, that doesn't mean they won't feel better eliminating grains too. I can sustain this way of eating because my body has never felt better.

Before I was diagnosed, I counted calories and lost weight, BUT I couldn't sustain 1200 calories a day... I was always hungry and was working out 1.5 to 2 hours a day so I could earn enough calories to satisfy my hunger! When I went back to school, I no longer had the time to do this and gained all the weight back plus 10.

If people feel good eating this way, why does it provoke such a negative reaction from people we've never even met? Is it in some way offensive? Seriously wondering what the big deal is... if this way of eating doesn't sound good to you, then stick with what ever works for you.

And in response to those saying if we would eat grains, we wouldn't be so cranky... no one is going to be happy about having their choices singled out and ridiculed.

fteale

I haven't seen any threads attacking vegetarians or vegans... Yet they eliminate what many people consider important.... meat and other animal products.

Years ago they were put down for their way of eating, but now, most people see this as an acceptable choice.

I have to eliminate almost all grains because I am allergic, but if someone hasn't been diagnosed, that doesn't mean they won't feel better eliminating grains too. I can sustain this way of eating because my body has never felt better.

Before I was diagnosed, I counted calories and lost weight, BUT I couldn't sustain 1200 calories a day... I was always hungry and was working out 1.5 to 2 hours a day so I could earn enough calories to satisfy my hunger! When I went back to school, I no longer had the time to do this and gained all the weight back plus 10.

If people feel good eating this way, why does it provoke such a negative reaction from people we've never even met? Is it in some way offensive? Seriously wondering what the big deal is... if this way of eating doesn't sound good to you, then stick with what ever works for you.

And in response to those saying if we would eat grains, we wouldn't be so cranky... no one is going to be happy about having their choices singled out and ridiculed.

You can't have been looking very hard! About once a week there is a 12 page thread laying into us vegetarians. Usually with morons posting pictures of raw meat they think look delicious and I think look like a scene from a horror film.

LorinaLynn

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).

Exactly. A study of art history will show that people have had a tendency towards chunkiness at least since the invention of the paintbrush. The biggest difference seems to be that back then, only the wealthy and privileged got fat. Working folks probably didn't, but working folks didn't get immortalized in paintings and sculptures, either.

Sidesteal

I think the original intent of this thread was to discuss the merits of the diet from a scientific standpoint. Has any of this actually occurred yet?

RonSwanson66

I think the original intent of this thread was to discuss the merits of the diet from a scientific standpoint. Has any of this actually occurred yet?

kateroot

I didn't read the whole thread, but all I have to say about Paleo is I don't understand why people want to model their eating habits after people whose average lifespan was what, 25-30 years? Meh. Not for me.

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.

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.

The WHO seems to think obesity is a rising problem.

http://www.who.int/hpr/NPH/docs/gs_obesity.pdf

So if processed foods aren't a good diet, what diet beats the paleo diet of more natural whole foods?

Silverkittycat

I think the original intent of this thread was to discuss the merits of the diet from a scientific standpoint. Has any of this actually occurred yet?

No, apparently it's much easier to discuss rocks, doughnuts and pizza crusts. People like to stick with what they know..

Acg67

grinch031

I didn't read the whole thread, but all I have to say about Paleo is I don't understand why people want to model their eating habits after people whose average lifespan was what, 25-30 years? Meh. Not for me.

Maybe if you believe that modern medicine has nothing to do with our much longer lifespans.

Drunkadelic

I honestly just don't think there is enough evidence out there yet to prove or disprove any diet, which is very unfortunate. It takes lots of money to do a well controlled study and the main place to get that money is either from big corporations or the government. You have to take every study funded by a big corporation with a grain of salt, and you have to really dig deep into the article without just glancing at an abstract. Plus, all of these studies, to apply to humans, will have to involve humans. Without being able to watch the subjects 24/7, you really have no idea how honest your participants are. People lie. Fact of life.

You also have to take in to consideration that the newest journal articles aren't available to the general public. So, as a normal member of society, without the money to subscribe to all the necessary medical journals, we are severely limited in what we can learn.

Now, proceed with the diet bashing. I'm bored.

kateroot

I didn't read the whole thread, but all I have to say about Paleo is I don't understand why people want to model their eating habits after people whose average lifespan was what, 25-30 years? Meh. Not for me.

Maybe if you believe that modern medicine has nothing to do with our much longer lifespans.

I very much believe that. But I don't think a modern diet is a detriment to our health either, as long as moderation is practiced.

hoya31

You asked for studies. People, they are out there, you're just refusing to listen or even read. Please don't take me as snooty, but it's obvious that you want me to feed this to you in a silver spoon. You need to research it for yourselves outside of forums, which are not reliable sources of information.

If you don't want to purchase a book, start by perusing through this website - or google it - The Weston A Price Foundation... here are some articles with topics for you to choose...

http://www.westonaprice.org/abcs-of-nutrition/health-topics

Here is a scientific article linking the benefits of the paleo diet: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2787021/?tool=pubmed

Isolt

If people feel good eating this way, why does it provoke such a negative reaction from people we've never even met? Is it in some way offensive? Seriously wondering what the big deal is... if this way of eating doesn't sound good to you, then stick with what ever works for you.

Exactly! I don't go around taking swings at people for eating vlcd, or low-fat, or vegan, or WW/SW or any other of the myriad of diets out there....but there just seems to be something about primal eating (and low-carb) which makes people take a pop.

And in response to those saying if we would eat grains, we wouldn't be so cranky... no one is going to be happy about having their choices singled out and ridiculed.

Well I don't know about anyone else in the thread.....but I consider forum debate to be akin to fencing; you jab at each other, perhaps draw blood every now and then, but it's essentially done for fun and you shake hands before popping off home for tea and crumpets (well....tea and flaxseed muffins in my case)

treetop57

.

fteale

I think the original intent of this thread was to discuss the merits of the diet from a scientific standpoint. Has any of this actually occurred yet?

I always laugh when you post that.

Isolt

Exactly. A study of art history will show that people have had a tendency towards chunkiness at least since the invention of the paintbrush. The biggest difference seems to be that back then, only the wealthy and privileged got fat. Working folks probably didn't, but working folks didn't get immortalized in paintings and sculptures, either.

It's certainly not the case that there was a 'tendency towards chunkiness' thoughout the entire historical period covered by bushwork paintings. During certain periods, the ideal of beauty tended towards plump and obviously we see that in paintings from that time (Rubens notably), but if you read historical documents from the Middle Ages you'll often see nobles complaining that the wife picked out for them was fat.....so the mere fact it was a complaint rather suggests it wasn't usual.

As for diet; well if we take the Middle Ages then the peasants ate masses of carbohydrates; bread (absolutely TONS of bread), vegetables, fruit and the odd bit of meat. The nobles ate meat - TONS of meat, a few vegetables (onions mosly, they weren't fond of 'green stuff'), fruit, honey and nuts. After the Crusades the nobles developed a penchant for highly spiced meats....it being a sign of wealth that you could afford to splash exotic spices that had travelled from the Far East around.

The peasantry, by and large, always ate more carbohydrates than the nobles because it was far cheaper to do so. Both classes had nutrition issues since people were short during that period and suffered a lot from such issues as rotting teeth, ricketts and scurvey.

Acg67

You asked for studies. People, they are out there, you're just refusing to listen or even read. Please don't take me as snooty, but it's obvious that you want me to feed this to you in a silver spoon. You need to research it for yourselves outside of forums, which are not reliable sources of information.

If you don't want to purchase a book, start by perusing through this website - or google it - The Weston A Price Foundation... here are some articles with topics for you to choose...

http://www.westonaprice.org/abcs-of-nutrition/health-topics

Here is a scientific article linking the benefits of the paleo diet: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2787021/?tool=pubmed

So from your link, they then reference this study a bunch

Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724493/?tool=pubmed

It relies on self reported intakes and doesn't hold macros constant. And it involves people with type 2 diabetes, so what does any of this mean for your average person?

fteale

Exactly. A study of art history will show that people have had a tendency towards chunkiness at least since the invention of the paintbrush. The biggest difference seems to be that back then, only the wealthy and privileged got fat. Working folks probably didn't, but working folks didn't get immortalized in paintings and sculptures, either.

It's certainly not the case that there was a 'tendency towards chunkiness' thoughout the entire historical period covered by bushwork paintings. During certain periods, the ideal of beauty tended towards plump and obviously we see that in paintings from that time (Rubens notably), but if you read historical documents from the Middle Ages you'll often see nobles complaining that the wife picked out for them was fat.....so the mere fact it was a complaint rather suggests it wasn't usual.

As for diet; well if we take the Middle Ages then the peasants ate masses of carbohydrates; bread (absolutely TONS of bread), vegetables, fruit and the odd bit of meat. The nobles ate meat - TONS of meat, a few vegetables (onions mosly, they weren't fond of 'green stuff'), fruit, honey and nuts. After the Crusades the nobles developed a penchant for highly spiced meats....it being a sign of wealth that you could afford to splash exotic spices that had travelled from the Far East around.

The peasantry, by and large, always ate more carbohydrates than the nobles because it was far cheaper to do so. Both classes had nutrition issues since people were short during that period and suffered a lot from such issues as rotting teeth, ricketts and scurvey.

Rotting teeth was more of a problem for the aristocracy in the middle ages. The peasantry didn't have access to sugar.

In Medieval and Tudor England, the royal families and aristocracy had statures and health issues similar to modern day Americans. John of Gaunt was famously very tall, his descendants Edward IV and Henry VIII were each over 6'2" tall and in later life obese. Obviously the general population was much shorter, but then they were in the majority actually starving by modern day standards, and mostly working very hard physically.

Scurvy was only an issue for sailors on long sea voyages. Not the general population.

Apparently there is no evidence of tooth decay in Native American and Mexican populations before the advent of corn (can't remember exactly when that was), and it appeared literally overnight once corn started being cultivated.

RonSwanson66

Apparently there is no evidence of tooth decay in Native American and Mexican populations before the advent of corn (can't remember exactly when that was), and it appeared literally overnight once corn started being cultivated.

So their teeth fell out the day after corn miraculously arrived?

LOL.

callmeBAM

Let's all post links to things that support or preconceived beliefs.

The thread is a waste of time because everyone is entrenched in their dogmas.

1970 - Global Ice Age Coming!!!
2000 - the world is going to ignite!!!!
2010 - Ok, maybe not, but we have to get excited about something terrible!

Science is always changing and evolving and reanalyzing and introducing new data. Most of you aren't.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

I beg to differ, pizza, cupcakes are foods made from nutritionally voids food products, which in my book and most people's books is plain crap.

What is wrong with pizza? Cheese, tomatoes, vegetables, meat, and bread.

I can understand not finding a lot of nutritional value in a cupcake, but pizza?!

Is it the combination of the above products along with cooking it in a disc shape that suddenly makes it bad?

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

I am going to act three years old.

Is this real life? I am done reading this thread. People take **** to the extreme.

Since Carbohydrates are NOT necessary, no I am not taking anything to the extreme. The flour crust that has no taste to it is just a carrier for the stuff that matters, which is the pizza toppings.

There are NO nutrients in grain products that I can not get anywhere else from other foods. They aren't a necessity and frankly have little or no taste.

Plus I do not like having joint and muscular pains after eating said grain products for a week or so after eating grain products. I had a bagel last week being courteous to my instructor and have joint pain in my wrists, elbows, hips and knees every since.

If you think I am taking things to the extreme, take time to think about what someone is going through.

You all are some ignorant fools on this thread.

No one seems to take in account that many people that reap the benefits of either controlling carbs or eliminating certain foods are doing so out of necessity.

It is ridiculous and VERY immature for you all to continue to berate those of us that NEED to cut these foods out for health and well being.

I am sick of you all and since you all belong to some MFP moderators clique nothing ever gets said while you continue to berate those of us that eat a little differently.

You all should really be ashamed of yourself.

Isolt

In Medieval and Tudor England, the royal families and aristocracy had statures and health issues similar to modern day Americans. John of Gaunt was famously very tall, his descendants Edward IV and Henry VIII were each over 6'2" tall and in later life obese. Obviously the general population was much shorter, but then they were in the majority actually starving by modern day standards, and mostly working very hard physically.

Mind you, I'm not sure Edward Plantagenet or dear old Henry Tudor were typical of the population of the time and were 'larger than life' in a number of respects. Even a look in the armoury of the Tower of London shows Henry's armour positively *towering* over the other sets. They were also both 'colourful' figures weren't they - big eaters, big drinkers,big hunters, big wenchers...but I guess when young both of them were extremely active (Henry was into wrestling and the indoor version of tennis from memory). Henry slowed down a wee bit with gout and syphilis; I can't remember how Edward's health was...but I aways suspect he 'took to his cups' after being nagged to death by Elizabeth Woodville.

I think it'd be fair to say that for the nobility, bread was something you dumped your meat into as a convenient vessel.