Paleo Diet!

PaleoPath4Lyfe

If you have no addiction issues..........

Then give up bread for 30 days.

Eat only FATS, Proteins and carbs from fruits and vegetables.

30 DAYS...............If you are not willing or able to give it a go for 30 days, then yes in deed there are addiction issues.

Good grief! This is silly. Just because someone chooses not to participate in another's experiment is not proof of an addiction.

I would refuse to go barefoot for 30 days. That doesn't make me addicted to shoes.

I absolutely agree with this. You expect someone to sacrifice a well-balanced diet for the sake of proving you wrong. Nah... not worth my energy.

Oh and the 'food addiction' thing is just retarded. I am a recovering drug addict. There is a chemical reaction that occurs in the brain when you abuse substances. That same chemical reaction can occur with food, but not nearly as intensely. Our bodies require food. Whether you are paleo, vegetarian, keto, or cutting any other specific food item out of your diet, if you are not especially careful you can create nutritional defeciencies that will disrupt weight loss and health in the long run. I'm not even really convinced that you can avoid those deficiencies, but what you do with your body is your choice. But refusing to take an extreme measure that could cause deficiencies has absolutely NOTHING to do with food addiction. The closest anyone comes to an addiction with food are binge eaters.

This makes me laugh.

When I looked at that person's food diary there is nothing balanced about it.

I eat very balanced.

Meat, fats, vegetables and fruits.

Every Dr I have went to see says I eat very balanced and wish more their patients would do the same. But they won't due to their food addictions.

My diary is only open to my friends because of judgmental hypocrites such as yourself so I know you aren't referring to me.

I am by far NOT a hypocrite. A hypocrite is someone that talks the talk, but can not or does not walk the walk.

I hate to tell you, but I DO walk the walk and I do it with ease and simplicity.

I don't even purchase commercialized personal hygiene, cleaning or laundry supplies from the store. I make my own out of various common things found in the kitchen. Namely baking soda, vinegar, lemon and water.

My diary is only open to my friends also for similar reason.

And I was NOT talking to you. I was talking to the person that likened me to the KKK and called me an idiot.

bcattoes

I'll post more later when I have time (and assuming I remember this topic exists), but very quickly (and then back to my day job)...

My position is that there is not good support for the "eat more 'heart healthy grains'" advice. (And I guess rather than saying that the science is bad, it would have been more accurate that I said I do not believe science exists that supports the advice. Almost the same thing, but slightly different.) I was asked to provide support for that, so I went in search of a lack of studies that support the advice. Obviously, you can see the problem here...finding support for the position that the advice is not well-supported.

I do see the problem, and if you had simply said you don't believe the science exists, rather than the science that did exist was "not good" I would not have asked why you though it "not good".

Here are a few studies or study reviews re: whole grains and heart health.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479204
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17449231
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16670693
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16670693

There are more out there, which I'm sure you are aware if you've done the research. And, as is normal with any subject, there are studies with conflicting results. Though, I have never seen a study that showed increased risk of heart disease from whole grains.

There are also studies and analyses linking whole grains to reduced risk of type 2 diabetes (a risk factor for CVD) and reduced risk of stroke.

AlabasterVerve

I think what those studies are showing is that the whole grains are less bad, not that they're good for you.

bcattoes

I think what those studies are showing is that the whole grains are less bad, not that they're good for you.

Why do you think differently than the scientists?

UsedToBeHusky

In your defense, you *did* ask your question first...so normally I would agree that we should address that before moving on to *my* question. My problem is, I believe it is impossible to find support for a position that the support does not exist. However, I'll see what I can do to provide some secondary sources...though not sufficient for meeting my original position, they may provide some ideas as to where we can go from here. Meanwhile, if you could provide a few cites in support of your position, this whole discussion could be resolved more quickly (and I would accept my defeat with as much grace and dignity as I can muster having just lost an MFP forum discussion).

You actually began this conversation with someone else, but I am willing to oblige your request. I am a business student and have taken several marketing and business law classes so I am able to elucidate the issue of health-related marketing strategies such as the one you are specifically referring to; the claim that whole grains are good for heart health.

Okay. It works like this. Marketers cannont make specific claims regarding health without the authorization of the FDA. First, the company submits a request to the FDA to use a specific health claim, and must provide clinical studies to support said claim. The company must pay for these studies to be performed by at least one independent entity. Subsequently, the FDA hires another independent entity to confirm the claims of these studies before authorization is given, and in an effort to avoid biases. If a company makes a health claim without authorization of the FDA, then they subject themselves to liability. Such as the case with Skechers who most recently has been accused of making a claim that their shoes can help to work abs and glutes simply by walking in them.

The FDA offers a list of claims that it has authorized at this website http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/LabelClaims/FDAModernizationActFDAMAClaims/default.htm.

Included among these claims are several that have been authorized to claim a link between whole grains and heart health. Several of them identify the high content of fiber and unsaturated fats in whole grain as the source for lowered levels of LDL, and thus, a reduced risk in heart disease.

Now, many out there do not have faith in the FDA to investigate these claims without biasness. However, one must understand that laws have been put in place to guide the FDA specifically in order to avoid biasness. That is not to say that individuals may find ways to manipulate the system. However, there presently isn't any evidence to my knowledge that can support the theory that the FDA has been utterly corrupted throughout.

Now, it is relatively easy to say that the system is flawed and that the link between whole grains and heart health isn't fully supported, and therefore, the heart health claims are marketing propaganda. But one could also easily say that the sensationalistic claims against grains used by the Paleo supporters is also unsupported marketing propaganda generated by the author and publishers of the Paleo Diet books. To be fair, I haven't read the book and am only assuming that things spouted off by the Pale supporters in this thread can be found somewhere in the book. However, I am fully aware of the accountability standards that the federal government holds over the food and drug industries, but I am not aware of the accountability standards that the federal government holds over the publishing industry.

I didn't come here to bash the Paleo Diet. If it works for you and it is something that you can manage as a part of a long-term healthy lifestyle, then I have no issue with it at all. I do, however, take issue with the spreading of rumors or falsehoods. As it stands, the federal government has recognized the relationship between whole grains and heart health so therefore, claims that no evidence exists to the contrary is simply ignorant at best.

I apologize if I have come off harshly. It has only been my desire to add truth and facts to this conversation. I hope that I have been at least somewhat helpful.

AlabasterVerve

I think what those studies are showing is that the whole grains are less bad, not that they're good for you.

Why do you think differently than the scientists?

Because I think the scientists are starting from a flawed foundation and that colors the studies people are willing to pay for.

pattyproulx

I've only read the excerpts of those studies, but I've seen a few in the past and the ones that I have looked always have the same deficiency. They don't compare whole-grain vs no-grain; they lump whole-grain eaters against everyone else (including the vast majority of unhealthy people who eat processed everything).

In general, because whole-grains were deemed 'healthy' by the government, whole-grain eaters are more live healthier lifestyles. They'll generally follow a better diet (less processed crap-more fruit/veggies), be less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise, etc than the average Joe Shmo who doesn't eat whole grains (but eats plenty of white bread ).

Kaylee_Loren

Can't we all just get along?!

I think that each and every person is unique and different. Some do well with certain diets, and some don't. You just have to try it out and see what works best for you. Personally, Paleo works wonders for me and a lot of other people I know. It's not gonna kill you to try it for a few weeks!

Back to the dairy-I do allow my self a few glasses of chocolate milk a week after workouts It's my TREAT!

UsedToBeHusky

I think what those studies are showing is that the whole grains are less bad, not that they're good for you.

Why do you think differently than the scientists?

Because I think the scientists are starting from a flawed foundation and that colors the studies people are willing to pay for.

Paranoid much? Every scientist who performs a study has no honor or pride in their work? If that were true, then none of them can be trusted to delivery unbiased evidence in support of either argument.

pattyproulx

I think what those studies are showing is that the whole grains are less bad, not that they're good for you.

Why do you think differently than the scientists?

Scientists are paid to come to a conclusion - doesn't mean the conclusion is the right one or that a real conclusion is even possible based on the methods undertaken for the study.

I'm not arguing that whole grain eaters are healthier than the general population. I don't doubt that one bit.
Just like I would be willing to bet that people who shop at Lululemon (is it only a Canadian thing?), are healthier than those who don't. It doesn't mean that shopping at Lululemon is going to lower your risk of CVD.

MSepp

Has anyone here tried eating the way our caveman ancestors did? How did it go for you? Did you lose weight? Did you drink milk?

Here's an article for it:

http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/10/04/the-beginners-guide-to-the-paleo-diet/

Let me know what you guys think!:flowerforyou:

Having spoke w/many people who are on the paleo diet, I have to say there's some discrepancies. A lot of people use protein powder and health shakes. I laugh and say "oh...I'm sure early man had access to whey powder."

amy1612

Good stuff!

You do get used to the 'no-bread-burger' look though - or maybe there is less reaction because it's just becoming more common now with more people going Paleo and gluten-free becoming more prominent.

I remember the first time I asked for it though - definitely felt awkward, haha.

Yeah, it was funny, especially considering the menu marks gluten free options and will prepare things gluten free if you request so.

_Amy_Budd

Enjoying the taste of something is not the same as an addiction. I've been addicted before. I am currently addicted to nicotine.

To suggest that people are addicted to bread is absurd.

Respectfully, you absolutely can be addicted to bread. The blood sugar rush-and-crash is a cycle that the body tries to maintain, unless you end it completely. I've read in multiple sources that the effect of wheat on the brain is very similar to the effect of morphine.

I was addicted to nicotine once, too, and it wasn't until I eliminated it completely - cold turkey - that I was able to successfully let it go. That was 7 years ago.

And once I was addicted to wheat. I could lose weight, but I always gained it back (and then some), because of that addiction. "Whole grains" are just as addictive, and without eliminating grains completely, I always fell off the wagon eventually, as the addiction got the best of me. It was not about enjoying the taste. It was about a physical addiction.

I eliminated grains completely over a year ago - cold turkey - and I no longer crave them. I follow a Primal lifestyle, and I've never felt healthier or happier. And I've lost almost 150 pounds. I do not indulge in even one bite of grains, not ever, because I *am* an addict. After all, you wouldn't tell an alcoholic that they can have a "cheat drink" once a week, would you?

When I learned about this, I was skeptical, too. But I decided to try it for 30 days - and see if I really felt like it was a "detox". And it absolutely did. I urge you not to dismiss this - imagine how you might feel after 30 days of living this way...

The hatefulness on posts like this really makes me sad. Why would anyone discourage others from trying something that might help them? Don't tell me what I have experienced is bullsh*t. It isn't. I've known other addictions as well, so I can make those comparisons too.

So I'll just continue living happily, being fit and healthy, and enjoying what I eat without feeling either deprived or having food cravings. The skeptics can tell themselves that I'm a fool. I will always know better.

Acg67

Enjoying the taste of something is not the same as an addiction. I've been addicted before. I am currently addicted to nicotine.

To suggest that people are addicted to bread is absurd.

Respectfully, you absolutely can be addicted to bread. The blood sugar rush-and-crash is a cycle that the body tries to maintain, unless you end it completely. I've read in multiple sources that the effect of wheat on the brain is very similar to the effect of morphine.

Care to post these multiple sources that say the effect of wheat is very similar to morphine on the brain?

Did you go to a wheat addiction treatment center for help with your addiction or do it yourself?

bcattoes

I think what those studies are showing is that the whole grains are less bad, not that they're good for you.

Why do you think differently than the scientists?

Scientists are paid to come to a conclusion - doesn't mean the conclusion is the right one or that a real conclusion is even possible based on the methods undertaken for the study.

So, your argument is that you think all nutrition scientists are for sale? Who is buying them out?

For the epidemiological studies, do you think all the thousands of participants were paid to lie, or that the scientists were paid to fudge the answers?

Is it only nutrition science, or do you believe all scientific study results are bought and pre-formed?

jofjltncb6

I'll post more later when I have time (and assuming I remember this topic exists), but very quickly (and then back to my day job)...

My position is that there is not good support for the "eat more 'heart healthy grains'" advice. (And I guess rather than saying that the science is bad, it would have been more accurate that I said I do not believe science exists that supports the advice. Almost the same thing, but slightly different.) I was asked to provide support for that, so I went in search of a lack of studies that support the advice. Obviously, you can see the problem here...finding support for the position that the advice is not well-supported.

I do see the problem, and if you had simply said you don't believe the science exists, rather than the science that did exist was "not good" I would not have asked why you though it "not good".

Here are a few studies or study reviews re: whole grains and heart health.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479204
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17449231
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16670693
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16670693

There are more out there, which I'm sure you are aware if you've done the research. And, as is normal with any subject, there are studies with conflicting results. Though, I have never seen a study that showed increased risk of heart disease from whole grains.

There are also studies and analyses linking whole grains to reduced risk of type 2 diabetes (a risk factor for CVD) and reduced risk of stroke.

(No, I haven't fully dug into these yet, but I just can't stay away from this thread...(probably because of people letting me know that it's my turn to respond. Hey, people, knock it off! I'm trying to do my day-job work here. =P ))

Epidemiological studies are wonderful to identify correlations to be investigated in future studies, but can not not (IMHO) be relied on as conclusive to causation. Quick glance tells me that all three studies cited are epidemiological. For various reasons, I suspect the others you alluded to may also be epidemiological.

But let's ignore that overarching issue for a moment and look further at these studies anyhow. Aren't most/all of these studies ultimately comparing the benefits of eating *whole* grains vs. eating *refined* grains? I am not refuting that whole grains are more beneficial than refined grains (or, yes, to stay consistent with many of my paleo brethren, (although it isn't the argument that I'm making here), that whole grains are less damaging than refined grains...and to be fair, I realize that there is a subset of the paleo/primal crowd that believe this to be the other way around. Which is correct? Who knows...and I'm okay with that since I eat neither.)

What I do not see in the referenced studies, and what I believe does not exist (yet), is a comparison of a heavily grain-based diet to a no-grain diet indicating that the heavily grain-based diet is beneficial to health (and to be consistent, since it's where I started, specifically to "heart health"). And given how studies are financed/supported, it may be a while before we see those studies.

(Now, back to work...)

pattyproulx

I think what those studies are showing is that the whole grains are less bad, not that they're good for you.

Why do you think differently than the scientists?

Scientists are paid to come to a conclusion - doesn't mean the conclusion is the right one or that a real conclusion is even possible based on the methods undertaken for the study.

So, your argument is that you think all nutrition scientists are for sale? Who is buying them out?

For the epidemiological studies, do you think all the thousands of participants were paid to lie, or that the scientists were paid to fudge the answers?

Is it only nutrition science, or do you believe all scientific study results are bought and pre-formed?

I'm not even saying they are making biased conclusions or being bought out. But they do need to come to a conclusion at the end of the study and what I'm saying is they don't have enough information to come to a conclusion but do so anyhow.

The studies themselves are incredibly flawed in that they pin whole-grain eaters against the rest of the population. Clearly, whole-grain eaters will win out. It doesn't mean that whole grains are healthy. It means that people who eat whole-grains live healthier lifestyles than the rest of the population (again, I could tell you that without a study).

It comes down to causation/correlation, and to me there is no proof there whatsoever that whole-grains are the cause of a lower risk of CVD.

It's like asking women if they shop at Lululemon and analyzing their risk of CVD and then coming to the conclusion that shopping at Lululemon lowers ones risk of CVD because their shoppers has a lowered risk.

jofjltncb6

Can't we all just get along?!

I think that each and every person is unique and different. Some do well with certain diets, and some don't. You just have to try it out and see what works best for you. Personally, Paleo works wonders for me and a lot of other people I know. It's not gonna kill you to try it for a few weeks!

Back to the dairy-I do allow my self a few glasses of chocolate milk a week after workouts It's my TREAT!

Personally, I'm okay with everyone not getting along...because, hey, somewhere in this discussion, at least one side is wrong about something (and, as can happen in complex issues like this, would not be completely surprising to learn that both sides are actually partially wrong or at least right for the wrong reasons)...and as long as someone is wrong on the internet, all of us (on both sides of whatever the argument is) must continue our crusade to remedy this.

Ultimately, the whole paleo/primal approach is contrary to CW, so it is completely expected that there will be resistance and push-back...and who knows, maybe the other side is completely right and we have deluded ourselves into thinking that we experienced improvement (or that the improvement was for completely other reasons). I don't think so, but maybe. Until then, I'll just keep sharing my own personal experience and opinions (which are just that, my own opinions which should be taken as such (regardless of how many big words or unnecessarily cumbersome sentence structures I use)).

(Now seriously, real work must be done...otherwise, I'll miss lunch, and no one would say that that's healthy...(Huh? Intermittent fasting? Really? And you say that paleo people do this? Sounds like crazy-talk to me.) Okay, fine, *I* don't think it's particularly healthy.)

UsedToBeHusky

(No, I haven't fully dug into these yet, but I just can't stay away from this thread...(probably because of people letting me know that it's my turn to respond. Hey, people, knock it off! I'm trying to do my day-job work here. =P ))

Epidemiological studies are wonderful to identify correlations to be investigated in future studies, but can not not (IMHO) be relied on as conclusive to causation. Quick glance tells me that all three studies cited are epidemiological. For various reasons, I suspect the others you alluded to may also be epidemiological.

But let's ignore that overarching issue for a moment and look further at these studies anyhow. Aren't most/all of these studies ultimately comparing the benefits of eating *whole* grains vs. eating *refined* grains? I am not refuting that whole grains are more beneficial than refined grains (or, yes, to stay consistent with many of my paleo brethren, (although it isn't the argument that I'm making here), that whole grains are less damaging than refined grains...and to be fair, I realize that there is a subset of the paleo/primal crowd that believe this to be the other way around. Which is correct? Who knows...and I'm okay with that since I eat neither.)

What I do not see in the referenced studies, and what I believe does not exist (yet), is a comparison of a heavily grain-based diet to a no-grain diet indicating that the heavily grain-based diet is beneficial to health (and to be consistent, since it's where I started, specifically to "heart health"). And given how studies are financed/supported, it may be a while before we see those studies.

(Now, back to work...)

Alright. I concede that most of the studies that I have found have been a comparison of the whole grain diet to the rest of the population, and therefore, tend to sway to the common belief that whole grains are healthy.

However, the purpose of this is to prevent food distributors from making false claims about health. What laws require the author and publishers of the Paleo Diet book to scientifically support their claims? To the best of my knowledge, there is none. So while you can deny the science due to fallacies, you can't really support your own arguments either. This is where my issues with the Paleo Diet resides.

UsedToBeHusky

Can't we all just get along?!

I think that each and every person is unique and different. Some do well with certain diets, and some don't. You just have to try it out and see what works best for you. Personally, Paleo works wonders for me and a lot of other people I know. It's not gonna kill you to try it for a few weeks!

Back to the dairy-I do allow my self a few glasses of chocolate milk a week after workouts It's my TREAT!

Personally, I'm okay with everyone not getting along...because, hey, somewhere in this discussion, at least one side is wrong about something (and, as can happen in complex issues like this, would not be completely surprising to learn that both sides are actually partially wrong or at least right for the wrong reasons)...and as long as someone is wrong on the internet, all of us (on both sides of whatever the argument is) must continue our crusade to remedy this.

Ultimately, the whole paleo/primal approach is contrary to CW, so it is completely expected that there will be resistance and push-back...and who knows, maybe the other side is completely right and we have deluded ourselves into thinking that we experienced improvement (or that the improvement was for completely other reasons). I don't think so, but maybe. Until then, I'll just keep sharing my own personal experience and opinions (which are just that, my own opinions which should be taken as such (regardless of how many big words or unnecessarily cumbersome sentence structures I use)).

(Now seriously, real work must be done...otherwise, I'll miss lunch, and no one would say that that's healthy...(Huh? Intermittent fasting? Really? And you say that paleo people do this? Sounds like crazy-talk to me.) Okay, fine, *I* don't think it's particularly healthy.)

I agree with you here. I really don't see this as even a heated argument. For me, for the most part, it has just been a rational debate.