Paleo Diet!
Replies
-
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?
No, they are not.0 -
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?
No, they are not.
Then I don't see how they could have controlled for other diet factors besides whole grains. And as a result, other confounding factors are clearly in play. I'm standing by my position that epidemiological studies do not/can not establish causation...(but they aren't designed for that purpose either). They are the genesis of further studies that *do* and *can* establish causation. One day, these studies will be conducted...but I do not believe that day has arrived yet.
I am completely comfortable that my diet differs significantly from the average person's diet who just happens not to eat grains. I am also comfortable that the relative healthiness of my diet also differs.0 -
Awesome. And yes, I think you and I have found common ground on which we can agree (which might be an MFP forum first for you and me =P ). This conclusion is what I call the "but all the science isn't in yet" issue. And this is where my analytical side gets unhappy. As a type-a accountant-type, I like to collect all of the data and then make a reasonable decision based on that data. I like there to be one neat tidy fully supported obviously correct conclusion. But the problem is that "all of the data" just isn't available here...so we end up making conclusions based on what data is available. For me, I am comfortable that my decision to eliminate all grains from my diet, while perhaps not conclusively supported by the available research, is at least not contradicted by the available research either. For this same reason, (admittedly unlike some of my paleo friends), I just can not get fully behind the "all grains are evil for everybody period" argument. However, I am comfortable in recommending to others who struggle with certain ailments, or who complain that they have trouble fighting certain cravings, that perhaps grains may be a problem for them, or at least counter to their current goals.
Oh, and to be clear, I did not fall into the paleo/primal way of eating from a book. I was essentially paleo/primal for a month before I even knew that's what it was called. I went searching for the name of the diet I had adopted instead of adopting a diet based on what I had researched.
Well I can certainly see that there are benefits for some who pursue this approach. Obviously, the Paleo Diet is ideal for anyone with a gluten allergy. My primary concern is that actual claim that grains are the root cause of obesity in America. It's just simply not true. There are a tremendous number of factors that have led to the rise in obesity in America. Processed grains have truly only played a small role.
I've enjoyed our conversation, but I believe I will bow out of the thread on this note. Thanks for an interesting and informative debate! :happy:
While I am less convinced that it is completely irrelevant, honestly, I don't know how big of a role (if any) increased grain consumption has had on the obesity problem. It would not shock me if we ultimately determine they played a significant role...but it also wouldn't shock me if we ultimately determine that they play almost no role.
Indeed, a rare forum discussion between two MFPers with opposing views. :happy:
I'd like to say that I'm going to bow out of this thread too, but I'm sure I'll get pulled back into it. Meanwhile, best of luck to you on the rest of your journey. I'm sure we'll run into each other again in a future forum post.
0 -
wow, some ppeople sure get bent out of shape over stuff.
I want too try Paleo -for couple of weeks, for the sake of trying it- seeing if there is anything to glean from of for me specifically. maybe so. maybe not. not a big deal either way.
And I need to reduce my banana consumpion. I keep forgetting it is a common migraine trigger. I don't always notice it, but have been having more of both lately.0 -
wow, some ppeople sure get bent out of shape over stuff.
I want too try Paleo -for couple of weeks, for the sake of trying it- seeing if there is anything to glean from of for me specifically. maybe so. maybe not. not a big deal either way.
And I need to reduce my banana consumpion. I keep forgetting it is a common migraine trigger. I don't always notice it, but have been having more of both lately.
(I like to think of it more as "people sure are passionate about what they believe"...but you're probably more right.)
Fortunately, there are an incredible number of easily-available resources to help with your n=1 experiment...(whole9life.com, robbwolf.com, bulletproofexec.com, marksdailyapple.com, etc.) Good luck.0 -
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?
No, they are not.
Then I don't see how they could have controlled for other diet factors besides whole grains. And as a result, other confounding factors are clearly in play. I'm standing by my position that epidemiological studies do not/can not establish causation...(but they aren't designed for that purpose either). They are the genesis of further studies that *do* and *can* establish causation. One day, these studies will be conducted...but I do not believe that day has arrived yet.
I agree that epidemiological studies do not/can not establish causation. But they also do not eliminate causation. Nor does a controlled study establish causation. There would have to many studies with similar results to establish causation.
I'm not convinced studies will ever be conducted that will prove without a doubt that whole grains do or do not have an association with reduced CVD risk because the studies would have to be very long term. And in past long term studies where diets were compared, most subjects did not stick to the diets as they were instructed.
But since there have been multiple epidemiological studies showing that people that eat whole grains have reduced incidence of heart disease, diabetes, stroke and other diseases, I choose to be one of those people. Conclusive science? No. Good science? Yes.
More than 2 decades of a diet rich in addictive whole grains and 5 decades of eating poisonous legumes for me and so far, so good.0 -
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?
No, they are not.
Then I don't see how they could have controlled for other diet factors besides whole grains. And as a result, other confounding factors are clearly in play. I'm standing by my position that epidemiological studies do not/can not establish causation...(but they aren't designed for that purpose either). They are the genesis of further studies that *do* and *can* establish causation. One day, these studies will be conducted...but I do not believe that day has arrived yet.
But since there have been multiple epidemiological studies showing that people that eat whole grains have reduced incidence of heart disease, diabetes, stroke and other diseases, I choose to be one of those people. Conclusive science? No. Good science? Yes.
Is it good science because it is a stance that you agree and confirms your current beliefs?0 -
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?
No, they are not.
Then I don't see how they could have controlled for other diet factors besides whole grains. And as a result, other confounding factors are clearly in play. I'm standing by my position that epidemiological studies do not/can not establish causation...(but they aren't designed for that purpose either). They are the genesis of further studies that *do* and *can* establish causation. One day, these studies will be conducted...but I do not believe that day has arrived yet.
But since there have been multiple epidemiological studies showing that people that eat whole grains have reduced incidence of heart disease, diabetes, stroke and other diseases, I choose to be one of those people. Conclusive science? No. Good science? Yes.
Is it good science because it is a stance that you agree and confirms your current beliefs?
No, it's good science because it provides valuable scientific data. And actually, it didn't so much confirm my beliefts as form them. Although, all subsequent studies that I've seen have confirmed them, I would be more than willing to read a study that conflicted with them. I would judge whether I considered the confilcting results good science by who conducted it and what the peer reviewers had to say.
For example, I eat and/or drink soy almost daily. I started doing so after reading a couple of studies showing health benefits. But, there have been subsequent conflicting study results and I consider most of the information valuable. Maybe it's contributing to my health and maybe not. But I've been consuming it regularly long enough to believe it's not doing me harm. Hopefully I'm right.0 -
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?
No, they are not.
Then I don't see how they could have controlled for other diet factors besides whole grains. And as a result, other confounding factors are clearly in play. I'm standing by my position that epidemiological studies do not/can not establish causation...(but they aren't designed for that purpose either). They are the genesis of further studies that *do* and *can* establish causation. One day, these studies will be conducted...but I do not believe that day has arrived yet.
But since there have been multiple epidemiological studies showing that people that eat whole grains have reduced incidence of heart disease, diabetes, stroke and other diseases, I choose to be one of those people. Conclusive science? No. Good science? Yes.
Is it good science because it is a stance that you agree and confirms your current beliefs?
No, it's good science because it provides valuable scientific data. And actually, it didn't so much confirm my beliefts as form them. Although, all subsequent studies that I've seen have confirmed them, I would be more than willing to read a study that conflicted with them. I would judge whether I considered the confilcting results good science by who conducted it and what the peer reviewers had to say.
For example, I eat and/or drink soy almost daily. I started doing so after reading a couple of studies showing health benefits. But, there have been subsequent conflicting study results and I consider most of the information valuable. Maybe it's contributing to my health and maybe not. But I've been consuming it regularly long enough to believe it's not doing me harm. Hopefully I'm right.
What do you think of the perception that whole grains are healthy/healthier, therefore people who already are pretty health conscious choose to eat more whole grains, and thus have better health outcomes, not because of whole grains but their lifestyle choices that whole grains may play a small role in or none at all0 -
Read more about it, don't let the idea go and don't let other people talk you out of it because I guarantee they haven't given it a real chance. Read the research, the science behind it and the see the results for yourself.
My results - I lost all of my weight (39 lbs), decreased my overall cholesterol, and reduced my thyroid meds all within 6 months time. I eat 60% fat (including full-fat dairy), 25% protein (strength training) and 15% carbs from veggies and fruit.
Grok on!
Similar here. Overall, feel much better, and GERD almost completely gone. Lost all 30 pounds I wanted to lose in six months. Since then, have spent the past six months intentionally adding mostly lean mass (and am currently up around 14 pounds. I think my current ratios are around 60%F/20%P/20%C.
A major downside is that there are people out there who are very emotionally against the idea. They themselves usually claim that they believe it is too restrictive and that they could never give up their breads. (And many of these people will do whatever they can to convince you of the error of your ways.) My counter is that by completely giving up certain foods, I no longer crave them...or said another way, I have broken my addiction to certain foods. It is very liberating and makes it so much easier to make good, intentional dietary decisions. In other words, the more I stay "on plan", the easier it is to stay "on plan".
If you do decide to pursue it further, there are a lot of resources on the internet to help you. (whole9.org has a very helpful "induction phase" program that you may find helpful.)
EDIT: because grammar matters
Tried going to your link "whole9.org", it doesn't take you to any web page. You might want to check that out before posting.0 -
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?
No, they are not.
Then I don't see how they could have controlled for other diet factors besides whole grains. And as a result, other confounding factors are clearly in play. I'm standing by my position that epidemiological studies do not/can not establish causation...(but they aren't designed for that purpose either). They are the genesis of further studies that *do* and *can* establish causation. One day, these studies will be conducted...but I do not believe that day has arrived yet.
But since there have been multiple epidemiological studies showing that people that eat whole grains have reduced incidence of heart disease, diabetes, stroke and other diseases, I choose to be one of those people. Conclusive science? No. Good science? Yes.
Is it good science because it is a stance that you agree and confirms your current beliefs?
No, it's good science because it provides valuable scientific data. And actually, it didn't so much confirm my beliefts as form them. Although, all subsequent studies that I've seen have confirmed them, I would be more than willing to read a study that conflicted with them. I would judge whether I considered the confilcting results good science by who conducted it and what the peer reviewers had to say.
For example, I eat and/or drink soy almost daily. I started doing so after reading a couple of studies showing health benefits. But, there have been subsequent conflicting study results and I consider most of the information valuable. Maybe it's contributing to my health and maybe not. But I've been consuming it regularly long enough to believe it's not doing me harm. Hopefully I'm right.
What do you think of the perception that whole grains are healthy/healthier, therefore people who already are pretty health conscious choose to eat more whole grains, and thus have better health outcomes, not because of whole grains but their lifestyle choices that whole grains may play a small role in or none at all
It's certianly a possibility. It's nearly impossible to eat a diet rich in whole grains and a diet rich in overly processed grains, making it nearly impossible to tell if it is the elimination of the overly processed grains and not the addition of whole grains that provides the health benefits. But, it certainly does suggest that whole grains do not increase risk of disease, so I see no reason to eliminate them from a diet as the Paleo Diet suggests.
Have you ever seen study results suggesting there is increased risk of disease or poor health from eating whole grains?0 -
Read more about it, don't let the idea go and don't let other people talk you out of it because I guarantee they haven't given it a real chance. Read the research, the science behind it and the see the results for yourself.
My results - I lost all of my weight (39 lbs), decreased my overall cholesterol, and reduced my thyroid meds all within 6 months time. I eat 60% fat (including full-fat dairy), 25% protein (strength training) and 15% carbs from veggies and fruit.
Grok on!
Similar here. Overall, feel much better, and GERD almost completely gone. Lost all 30 pounds I wanted to lose in six months. Since then, have spent the past six months intentionally adding mostly lean mass (and am currently up around 14 pounds. I think my current ratios are around 60%F/20%P/20%C.
A major downside is that there are people out there who are very emotionally against the idea. They themselves usually claim that they believe it is too restrictive and that they could never give up their breads. (And many of these people will do whatever they can to convince you of the error of your ways.) My counter is that by completely giving up certain foods, I no longer crave them...or said another way, I have broken my addiction to certain foods. It is very liberating and makes it so much easier to make good, intentional dietary decisions. In other words, the more I stay "on plan", the easier it is to stay "on plan".
If you do decide to pursue it further, there are a lot of resources on the internet to help you. (whole9.org has a very helpful "induction phase" program that you may find helpful.)
EDIT: because grammar matters
Tried going to your link "whole9.org", it doesn't take you to any web page. You might want to check that out before posting.
Geesh...so grammar matters to me, but actual links apparently do not. Thanks for pointing that out.
The link is whole9life.com...(so I messed it up a whole lot and not just a little).0 -
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?
No, they are not.
Then I don't see how they could have controlled for other diet factors besides whole grains. And as a result, other confounding factors are clearly in play. I'm standing by my position that epidemiological studies do not/can not establish causation...(but they aren't designed for that purpose either). They are the genesis of further studies that *do* and *can* establish causation. One day, these studies will be conducted...but I do not believe that day has arrived yet.
But since there have been multiple epidemiological studies showing that people that eat whole grains have reduced incidence of heart disease, diabetes, stroke and other diseases, I choose to be one of those people. Conclusive science? No. Good science? Yes.
Is it good science because it is a stance that you agree and confirms your current beliefs?
No, it's good science because it provides valuable scientific data. And actually, it didn't so much confirm my beliefts as form them. Although, all subsequent studies that I've seen have confirmed them, I would be more than willing to read a study that conflicted with them. I would judge whether I considered the confilcting results good science by who conducted it and what the peer reviewers had to say.
For example, I eat and/or drink soy almost daily. I started doing so after reading a couple of studies showing health benefits. But, there have been subsequent conflicting study results and I consider most of the information valuable. Maybe it's contributing to my health and maybe not. But I've been consuming it regularly long enough to believe it's not doing me harm. Hopefully I'm right.
What do you think of the perception that whole grains are healthy/healthier, therefore people who already are pretty health conscious choose to eat more whole grains, and thus have better health outcomes, not because of whole grains but their lifestyle choices that whole grains may play a small role in or none at all
It's certianly a possibility. It's nearly impossible to eat a diet rich in whole grains and a diet rich in overly processed grains, making it nearly impossible to tell if it is the elimination of the overly processed grains and not the addition of whole grains that provides the health benefits. But, it certainly does suggest that whole grains do not increase risk of disease, so I see no reason to eliminate them from a diet as the Paleo Diet suggests.
Have you ever seen study results suggesting there is increased risk of disease or poor health from eating whole grains?
Not increased risk, at least that was of significance
The high fiber group fared the worst, although not significantly so
http://www.animi-3.com/D75.full.pdf
No better outcomes for polyp prevention for the high fiber/whole grain diet
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM2000042034216010 -
Have you ever seen study results suggesting there is increased risk of disease or poor health from eating whole grains?
Not increased risk, at least that was of significance
The high fiber group fared the worst, although not significantly so
http://www.animi-3.com/D75.full.pdf
No better outcomes for polyp prevention for the high fiber/whole grain diet
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200004203421601
Am I missing something? I don't see how either of these shows grains to cause increased risk of disease.0 -
Have you ever seen study results suggesting there is increased risk of disease or poor health from eating whole grains?
Not increased risk, at least that was of significance
The high fiber group fared the worst, although not significantly so
http://www.animi-3.com/D75.full.pdf
No better outcomes for polyp prevention for the high fiber/whole grain diet
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200004203421601
Am I missing something? I don't see how either of these shows grains to cause increased risk of disease.
Didn't have the time to find any that showed an increase of risk for disease, if there are any. Just posted two that didn't show any increased benefit to them0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions