Hunter-gatherers vs Westerners
Options
Replies
-
The issue highlighted in the study is that they are thinner and lighter than you, so they burn less calories on account of that - even accounting for greater activity levels.My first reaction was that the hunters and gatherers have become more efficient at burning calories because I have to work so much harder now to burn the same amount of calories as I did when I first started losing weight.
Doubly labelled water and respiratory gas analysis was used to determine energy consumption and expenditure, they also had GPS devices fitted and were measured for energy walking on a test track. It's all in the paper.
The "paleo diet" is mentioned by Dr John Briffa's blog http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/07/27/hunter-gatherers-most-likely-to-be-leaner-than-us-due-to-differences-in-diet-not-activity/ where he points to papers that find the "Paleo diet" to be more satiating resulting in lower ad lib energy intake of ~1400 vs 1800 cals/day compared to a "Mediterranean" style diet.
"Paleo diet" - http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7628r66r0552222/fulltext.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009971 includes macro & micro nutrient profiles.
I use "Paleo diet" in quotes to indicate what is currently eaten by those following such a diet, without any reference to ancient history ;-) There's a lot less carbs in the Paleo vs Mediterranean diet comparison.
Why do you defend a diet that has never been shown to have anything going for it?
You still haven't posted those links...
What links? Surely you are not asking me to repost links to the China Study, the German Study, the Framingham Study or any of the dozens of others that we have argued about in the past? If you are asking me to do that, why?
In case you are intersted, however, I will give you this link:
http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/slideshows/top-rated-diets-overall
I am not at all defending this "study," or its conclusions, or for that matter anything else it says. The US News College Report is about as accurate and scientific as this, but I did find it interesting that of all the diets mentioned (of which I am unaware of most) the Vegetarian diet, the Vegan diet, the Ornish diet , and virtually all of the veggie diets finished on top in just about every category, while the Paleo diet finished last. Any comments?
LOL, Usnews, yeah, they know what they are talking about. I've read that review. It was completely off base. The Paleo diet, by Cordain, calls for leans meats and is not a high saturated fat diet. They didn't cover all the nuances and I'm not on board with the lipid hypothesis anyway, so I don't buy the sat fat bogey man. Also, they mention dairy, or the lack thereof, fine do Primal. I often wonder what all those lactose intolerant people are going to do, they're all going to have horrible bone density when they hit 50 I suppose. In fact, that argument can be used against vegan diets as well since you eschew dairy. Fact is, Paleo is a vegan diet with a bit of meat thrown in, as I've said before.
I was asking you to cite the evidence of the Paleo diet being so bad since you were stating that.
It was more expert opinions than studies, Mutt. Paleo hasn't been around long enough to be studied.
Here is an example:
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/01/dont-eat-like-a-caveman/
Also, I agree that the USNews is sort of a pop study, not rigorous, but it does involve expert opinion, and most interestingly from my point of view, it allows visitors to the site to self report their satisfaction level with the diet. I don't have it in front of me at the moment, but something like 6 to 1 of vegetarians said the diet had helped them, while, if I recall about three to one of people who had tried Paleo said it had NOT helped them.
That was a really bad article written by a psychologist. The comments on that page completely destroy a very poorly written opinion piece. Haven't checked out the satisfaction level stuff on the usnews site but that's still pretty weak.
Mutt, is it a bad article because it disagrees with you? Frankly everything it says is logical and correct, It's the Paleos that live in Lala Land.
It's a bad article because it misrepresents the diet. They don't cover the variations in Paleo diets and it makes no citations. You can't even call it an expert opinion because the person writing the article has a degree in psychology.0 -
but I am sure these people have significant differences in genome from the wider population.
You are sure? Well scientific man, where is you scientific study to back that up? LOL
This actually makes sense. That tribe probably only reproduce, so to speak, with their own tribe. That may not ALWAYS be the case, but I would bet they keep within their tribe.
Actually, I would like to see evidence of this. If anything it illustrates how adaptable we are as humans in that we can survive on just about any mix of macros. It's interesting veggiusmaximus that you are making the assumption that a stick of butter is unhealthy, definite bias there, a preconception that groups like these call into question. Of course, if their genome is adapted, then that's different. I've yet to see a really good explanation for how Saturated Fat causes heart disease, no convincing mechanism has been uncovered from what I've read.
I do want to reiterate what I've said in other threads and what others have said here. There are variations on the "Paleo" diet, but overall it encourages the consumption of more vegetables, nuts, some support dairy consumption, and they include animal protein. If it's typical factory farmed meat then the suggestion is to eat lean meat. How on earth is that an unhealthy diet even in from the mainstream point of view? It restricts grain consumption, WHO CARES? Processed grains are devoid of much in the way of nutrients unless they are fortified.
Personally I think much of the arguing about Paleo diets is much ado about nothing. It's light years ahead of the Standard American Diet.
Yes, it probably targets men, is there something wrong with that? Weight Watchers targets women, believe me, I've been to a lot of weight watchers meetings. Interestingly though, I've seen LOADS of women posting on Marks Daily Apple. Perhaps they are all lesbians? lol
Yes, Mutt, and as I have been saying to you for what six months? A year? What solid evidence do you have that Paleo is any good? I have been asking you over and over, and have yet to get a solid reply. No, I am not interested in reading opinion pieces in the New York Times.
Everything I have ever read about Paleo from a non-Paleo source, including US News, says the diet is awful.
As for what I said about the genome, that is standard genetics and epigenetics. It is in any textbook.
As I've said before, Paleo has not been studied much yet. Would love to see a good study compare it to ornish, low fat SAD etc.
I've seen nothing in what you've posted that convinces me that loads of experts think it's awful. You'll find plenty of dietitians who don't like vegan diets too btw.
Just because we know about Epigenetics doesn't mean that those groups are uniquely adapted to fat and animal protein consumption.
So if you have no basis to believe it, and it is all urban myths, why the hell do you follow it?
We've had this argument before. LOL I follow it because some of the science that has been done makes sense. It intrinsically makes sense to me that a diet that tries to avoid factory farmed meat, encourages fruit and veg consumption and the avoidance of processed carbs is a healthier one. There is science to back up all of that, although I'm sure various industry groups would disagree. The Paleo diet has not been compared to other diets using rigorous studies yet, but aspects of it have been studied. If not studied extensively then expert opinion or simply common sense may prevail. For example, if you happen to HAVE to eat a piece of beef, would you take the one that has been fed corn and animal byproducts and pumped with growth hormones and antibiotics or would you take the one that is grass fed and raised in a manner closer to it's natural state. Personally I wold take the grass fed slab of beef, scientifically this is not valid conclusion, common sense is often proven wrong, however, in the absence of good science I'll run with common sense. I have seen studies that showed grass fed beef being much higher in omega 3 than factory farmed. I'll dig up the reference if it becomes a point of contention. That's not the point though, I'm saying there is science to support some of it but not in it's entirety, until science fills in the gaps either way, I'll fill them in myself with what makes sense to me and my own n=1.
I know you will say, just be veggie then since there is science that supports it. That's of course where we disagree and there are many long threads that attest to that.
I'm sure when you were first veggie/vegan there was less science around that supported it. Certainly Campbell's work that you quote often didn't exist.0 -
The issue highlighted in the study is that they are thinner and lighter than you, so they burn less calories on account of that - even accounting for greater activity levels.My first reaction was that the hunters and gatherers have become more efficient at burning calories because I have to work so much harder now to burn the same amount of calories as I did when I first started losing weight.
Doubly labelled water and respiratory gas analysis was used to determine energy consumption and expenditure, they also had GPS devices fitted and were measured for energy walking on a test track. It's all in the paper.
The "paleo diet" is mentioned by Dr John Briffa's blog http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/07/27/hunter-gatherers-most-likely-to-be-leaner-than-us-due-to-differences-in-diet-not-activity/ where he points to papers that find the "Paleo diet" to be more satiating resulting in lower ad lib energy intake of ~1400 vs 1800 cals/day compared to a "Mediterranean" style diet.
"Paleo diet" - http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7628r66r0552222/fulltext.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009971 includes macro & micro nutrient profiles.
I use "Paleo diet" in quotes to indicate what is currently eaten by those following such a diet, without any reference to ancient history ;-) There's a lot less carbs in the Paleo vs Mediterranean diet comparison.
Why do you defend a diet that has never been shown to have anything going for it?
You still haven't posted those links...
What links? Surely you are not asking me to repost links to the China Study, the German Study, the Framingham Study or any of the dozens of others that we have argued about in the past? If you are asking me to do that, why?
In case you are intersted, however, I will give you this link:
http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/slideshows/top-rated-diets-overall
I am not at all defending this "study," or its conclusions, or for that matter anything else it says. The US News College Report is about as accurate and scientific as this, but I did find it interesting that of all the diets mentioned (of which I am unaware of most) the Vegetarian diet, the Vegan diet, the Ornish diet , and virtually all of the veggie diets finished on top in just about every category, while the Paleo diet finished last. Any comments?
LOL, Usnews, yeah, they know what they are talking about. I've read that review. It was completely off base. The Paleo diet, by Cordain, calls for leans meats and is not a high saturated fat diet. They didn't cover all the nuances and I'm not on board with the lipid hypothesis anyway, so I don't buy the sat fat bogey man. Also, they mention dairy, or the lack thereof, fine do Primal. I often wonder what all those lactose intolerant people are going to do, they're all going to have horrible bone density when they hit 50 I suppose. In fact, that argument can be used against vegan diets as well since you eschew dairy. Fact is, Paleo is a vegan diet with a bit of meat thrown in, as I've said before.
I was asking you to cite the evidence of the Paleo diet being so bad since you were stating that.
It was more expert opinions than studies, Mutt. Paleo hasn't been around long enough to be studied.
Here is an example:
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/01/dont-eat-like-a-caveman/
Also, I agree that the USNews is sort of a pop study, not rigorous, but it does involve expert opinion, and most interestingly from my point of view, it allows visitors to the site to self report their satisfaction level with the diet. I don't have it in front of me at the moment, but something like 6 to 1 of vegetarians said the diet had helped them, while, if I recall about three to one of people who had tried Paleo said it had NOT helped them.
That was a really bad article written by a psychologist. The comments on that page completely destroy a very poorly written opinion piece. Haven't checked out the satisfaction level stuff on the usnews site but that's still pretty weak.
Mutt, is it a bad article because it disagrees with you? Frankly everything it says is logical and correct, It's the Paleos that live in Lala Land.
It's a bad article because it misrepresents the diet. They don't cover the variations in Paleo diets and it makes no citations. You can't even call it an expert opinion because the person writing the article has a degree in psychology.
Fair enough. However, the author is quite cute, and she is vegetarian. (Of course I am not suggesting those are good reasons for anyone but me to believe her ) In any event, her argument is logical, and actually mirrors some of the same objections I have to Paleo. I don't believe what you said overcomes any of my objections. You still really have no idea what Paleo man ate, even though you can say he didn't eat twinkees. This is a fantasy diet, not based on anything scientific, totally hypothetical, and almost impossible to recreate, even if you knew what it was, and is out of place in the modern world. And you want citations? You haven't provided any study that shows this diet is in any way positive. If your description is true, that this is a vegan diet with occasional meat, provided that no more than 70 grams of meat per week were consumed, I would agree with you that this is likely a good diet. However, I haven't heard anyone else but you give that description of the diet, 0 -
freerange and veggisaurus - Seriously, tone it down. I'm surprised this thread has been reported and shut down. Other threads have been shut down for far less. The name calling is getting old, "militant veggie" and "murder with an erection" are really not called for.
If you want people to listen to your point of view then you lost them many posts ago.
freerange - Vegg makes good points about Denise's lack of scientific credentials, although personally I don't find expert opinion to be very compelling, so someone having a PhD doesn't add a whole lot to their credibility IMO. They can be just as bias, possibly more so than a layperson. Never the less, we can't claim Denise is an "expert' in the field, I do believe anyone with a brain and some education should be able to question any academic. Ivory Tower PhDs are not a good thing.
Vegg - Denise raised some good points, even if her analysis wasn't as sophisticated as Campbell's. To be fair, she isn't a paid researcher with lots of time on her hands. However, she asked if there is an association between meat consumption and all cause mortality or between meat consumption and certain cancers why doesn't the data correlate that way when those variables are looked at directly. It's a fair enough question. Campbell often used a third variable to find a correlation. For example, meat consumption raises cholesterol. The leap is then, well that's bad and it will kill you sooner. However, it's not that simple, raises what type of cholesterol? LDL? HDL? Does it raise low density LDL? There are subspecies of LDL and now it seems HDL as well. Back in the 60s they needed a centrifuge designed for the Manhattan project to discover there was LDL particles of different densities. The discovery that there are different types of HDL is fairly recent. It's a complex picture. Campbell's response to Denise was a little high and mighty, but I'll give him credit for responding at all. I would have liked him to put together a response debunking Denise's debunking, pulling apart each of her criticisms and showing why she is wrong. I understand he's probably a busy person, fair enough, but if he really wants to educate and inform he should have done that.
Lets not get into the statistics 101 debate again veggie, that will server no purpose.
My point to both of you is please make this a reasoned informed debate.0 -
Fair enough. However, the author is quite cute, and she is vegetarian. (Of course I am not suggesting those are good reasons for anyone but me to believe her ) In any event, her argument is logical, and actually mirrors some of the same objections I have to Paleo. I don't believe what you said overcomes any of my objections. You still really have no idea what Paleo man ate, even though you can say he didn't eat twinkees. This is a fantasy diet, not based on anything scientific, totally hypothetical, and almost impossible to recreate, even if you knew what it was, and is out of place in the modern world. And you want citations? You haven't provided any study that shows this diet is in any way positive. If your description is true, that this is a vegan diet with occasional meat, provided that no more than 70 grams of meat per week were consumed, I would agree with you that this is likely a good diet. However, I haven't heard anyone else but you give that description of the diet,
Well, being quite cute puts her on par with Denise I guess. LOL Denise was also a veggie for a number of years. As I've said before, you can bash it's Paleo roots, but you can also remove Paleo from the name if you like. There have been some calls to move away from the caveman concept. Remove that and what do you have. A diet high in veggies, low in processed foods of any kind, particularly processed carbs. You can take your pick of a high saturated fat versus low sat fat variant. Personally I think there is some value in the Paleo concept as well but it cannot be the entire basis for the diet. Science must win, I've said this many times
I gave you links to Cordains work in the past, he's a PhD, he worked with nutritionists when designing his Paleo diet (probably why he follows the low fat dogma) and he's published and you'll find his stuff on Pub Med. He's had a debate with Campbell before, he cited boat loads of peer reviewed papers. You dismissed it at the time, perhaps you should take another look?
The Paleo/Primal diet will contain more than 70 grams of meat a week, definitely, at least for most. What's interesting to me is you call it an awful diet but yet the only disagreement you really have with it is the meat consumption. You probably don't agree with the avoidance of legumes either. My point is, based on your position it would seem to me that a Paleo diet may rank actually just below veggie. It's better than say a typical low fat weight loss diet like weight watchers which until recently encouraged the consumption of dairy (low fat), processed crap like low fat chocolate bars, chips, oils high in omega 6 etc. They still have all that crap but are trying to emphasize whole food consumption, is WW going Paleo?
I struggle with you saying it's an awful diet. If you said Atkins induction is an awful diet, I could understand. You disagree with those arguing from the "eat what we evolved to eat" perspective, fine, then look at the diet on its nutritional content alone.0 -
Hi! I'm VegesaurusRex's wife and the OP of this thread, which I might point out is about the mystery of why TDEE isn't higher in active hunter-gatherer populations as compared to typical Westerns working office jobs.
But, okay, I get it--tangents happen. I just want to say that I agree with anyone who avoids buying packaged food. Give me the produce aisle any day of the week. But, I also 'forage' the bulk food aisles in the natural food store for nuts, seeds, grains and beans. Right now, I'm setting up some rejuvalac to make some 'cheese' out of raw cashews. So, I agree with the idea of natural, whole foods, that are minimally processed. It seems to me that the paleos and the veg*ns here have much more in common than people eating the standard American diet. Can't this clashing of swords at least stop long enough to acknowledge that?0 -
As a hunter, I can tell you that a lot of it is sitting and waiting for the animal. Sure, there is walking from stand to stand, or trailing a deer but for the most part it's a waiting game-at least for my dad and me it is.
That sounds reasonable. I can't imagine a hunter being effective while running around in the scrub all day screaming 'animals, animals, come to my tummy!!!!!'
:laugh:
Even though we weren't designed to be as sedentary as we are, we also weren't designed to waste energy. The opposite, in fact, perhaps especially women. Doesn't surprise me at all that our bodies will do their best to hang on to whatever calories they get no matter what our daily activities and surroundings.
Which doesn't mean being more sedentary is just as healthy, since we were also clearly not designed to eat whatever we want whenever we want and carry around as much fat as many of us do.0 -
Fair enough. However, the author is quite cute, and she is vegetarian. (Of course I am not suggesting those are good reasons for anyone but me to believe her ) In any event, her argument is logical, and actually mirrors some of the same objections I have to Paleo. I don't believe what you said overcomes any of my objections. You still really have no idea what Paleo man ate, even though you can say he didn't eat twinkees. This is a fantasy diet, not based on anything scientific, totally hypothetical, and almost impossible to recreate, even if you knew what it was, and is out of place in the modern world. And you want citations? You haven't provided any study that shows this diet is in any way positive. If your description is true, that this is a vegan diet with occasional meat, provided that no more than 70 grams of meat per week were consumed, I would agree with you that this is likely a good diet. However, I haven't heard anyone else but you give that description of the diet,
Well, being quite cute puts her on par with Denise I guess. LOL Denise was also a veggie for a number of years. As I've said before, you can bash it's Paleo roots, but you can also remove Paleo from the name if you like. There have been some calls to move away from the caveman concept. Remove that and what do you have. A diet high in veggies, low in processed foods of any kind, particularly processed carbs. You can take your pick of a high saturated fat versus low sat fat variant. Personally I think there is some value in the Paleo concept as well but it cannot be the entire basis for the diet. Science must win, I've said this many times.
******************
Yes, and there is good science out there that says that a diet high in veggies, low in fat, low in processed anything, and with a VERY SMALL amount of meat (70 grams per week) can be very healthy. Other studies allow up to 500 grams of red meat per week can be healthy. Either way, it is far less than what the average American eats. I suspect even 500 grams per week is less than the average Paleo eats.
I really agree with you that Science must win out. But you admit that you have no science. So why not go with the science that is available now? In terms of eating meat, the big issue is how much can you eat before it hurts your health. There is not now, nor has there ever been an issue about how much veggies and fruit you can eat and remain healthy. The answer is always as much as you want. Processed foods, even if all vegetarian, are of course not the same thing. But whole foods, veggies, fruits, grains and nuts are healthy. (Yes if you ate nothing but peanuts for two months you would probably die, but I am excluding all absurd diets such as the potato chip, beer and ice cream diet.)
Again, for you health is the only consideration. You can be quite healthy on a veggie diet. For me, even if I believed I had to eat meat in order to live, I would not do it. It is ethics, not health that motivates me. The actual health benefits of a vegetarian diet are just a side benefit.
**********************
I gave you links to Cordains work in the past, he's a PhD, he worked with nutritionists when designing his Paleo diet (probably why he follows the low fat dogma) and he's published and you'll find his stuff on Pub Med. He's had a debate with Campbell before, he cited boat loads of peer reviewed papers. You dismissed it at the time, perhaps you should take another look?
******************
I do remember you did give me some cites, but I don't remember them or why I dismissed them. If you care to give them to me again, I would look at them again.
*****************
The Paleo/Primal diet will contain more than 70 grams of meat a week, definitely, at least for most. What's interesting to me is you call it an awful diet but yet the only disagreement you really have with it is the meat consumption. You probably don't agree with the avoidance of legumes either.
*****************
I certainly don't. I can see no rational reason to avoid legumes.
******************
My point is, based on your position it would seem to me that a Paleo diet may rank actually just below veggie. It's better than say a typical low fat weight loss diet like weight watchers which until recently encouraged the consumption of dairy (low fat), processed crap like low fat chocolate bars, chips, oils high in omega 6 etc. They still have all that crap but are trying to emphasize whole food consumption, is WW going Paleo?
*******************
I am not the person who ranked the diets, most of which I never heard of.
*********************
I struggle with you saying it's an awful diet. If you said Atkins induction is an awful diet, I could understand. You disagree with those arguing from the "eat what we evolved to eat" perspective, fine, then look at the diet on its nutritional content alone.
I agree with it to a certain point but it should not be a piece of dogma. We re living in a different world from what existed a million years ago. We have a different civilization and we should take advantage of it.0 -
freerange and veggisaurus - Seriously, tone it down. I'm surprised this thread has been reported and shut down. Other threads have been shut down for far less. The name calling is getting old, "militant veggie" and "murder with an erection" are really not called for.
*********************
I agree. Putting a hunter and an ethical vegetarian on the same thread is probably not a good idea. But I'll play nice if he does.
*********************
If you want people to listen to your point of view then you lost them many posts ago.
freerange - Vegg makes good points about Denise's lack of scientific credentials, although personally I don't find expert opinion to be very compelling, so someone having a PhD doesn't add a whole lot to their credibility IMO. They can be just as bias, possibly more so than a layperson. Never the less, we can't claim Denise is an "expert' in the field, I do believe anyone with a brain and some education should be able to question any academic. Ivory Tower PhDs are not a good thing.
*******************
Then why are you always asking for studies?
*****************
Vegg - Denise raised some good points, even if her analysis wasn't as sophisticated as Campbell's. To be fair, she isn't a paid researcher with lots of time on her hands. However, she asked if there is an association between meat consumption and all cause mortality or between meat consumption and certain cancers why doesn't the data correlate that way when those variables are looked at directly. It's a fair enough question. Campbell often used a third variable to find a correlation. For example, meat consumption raises cholesterol. The leap is then, well that's bad and it will kill you sooner. However, it's not that simple, raises what type of cholesterol? LDL? HDL? Does it raise low density LDL? There are subspecies of LDL and now it seems HDL as well. Back in the 60s they needed a centrifuge designed for the Manhattan project to discover there was LDL particles of different densities. The discovery that there are different types of HDL is fairly recent. It's a complex picture. Campbell's response to Denise was a little high and mighty, but I'll give him credit for responding at all. I would have liked him to put together a response debunking Denise's debunking, pulling apart each of her criticisms and showing why she is wrong. I understand he's probably a busy person, fair enough, but if he really wants to educate and inform he should have done that.
*****************
Campbell has given many lectures with opportunities to ask questions. Also, most academics will respond to emails. You wouldn't believe some of the people I have had email discussions with.
Also, as we had hashed out previously, it is impossible to know and correct for each and every independent variable that influences a dependent variable in real life. Thus, NO statistical study, ever done in the history of the universe is perfect. However, reasonably constructed studies can be very useful. Campbell may not be 100% right, but he is pretty close.
*****************
Lets not get into the statistics 101 debate again veggie, that will server no purpose.
My point to both of you is please make this a reasoned informed debate.0 -
Hi! I'm VegesaurusRex's wife and the OP of this thread, which I might point out is about the mystery of why TDEE isn't higher in active hunter-gatherer populations as compared to typical Westerns working office jobs.
But, okay, I get it--tangents happen. I just want to say that I agree with anyone who avoids buying packaged food. Give me the produce aisle any day of the week. But, I also 'forage' the bulk food aisles in the natural food store for nuts, seeds, grains and beans. Right now, I'm setting up some rejuvalac to make some 'cheese' out of raw cashews. So, I agree with the idea of natural, whole foods, that are minimally processed. It seems to me that the paleos and the veg*ns here have much more in common than people eating the standard American diet. Can't this clashing of swords at least stop long enough to acknowledge that?
That is what I keep saying to your husband. 0 -
-
Hi! I'm VegesaurusRex's wife and the OP of this thread, which I might point out is about the mystery of why TDEE isn't higher in active hunter-gatherer populations as compared to typical Westerns working office jobs.
But, okay, I get it--tangents happen. I just want to say that I agree with anyone who avoids buying packaged food. Give me the produce aisle any day of the week. But, I also 'forage' the bulk food aisles in the natural food store for nuts, seeds, grains and beans. Right now, I'm setting up some rejuvalac to make some 'cheese' out of raw cashews. So, I agree with the idea of natural, whole foods, that are minimally processed. It seems to me that the paleos and the veg*ns here have much more in common than people eating the standard American diet. Can't this clashing of swords at least stop long enough to acknowledge that?
That is what I keep saying to your husband.
Well, he should listen to you better than me, since after all, I'm his wife. ;^)
I believe whole food vegan and whole food paleo share much in common with each other. The glaring elephant in the room is meat. I don't want to argue the ethical/sustainability points which inform my dietary practices each and every day, but let me just say, I am passionate on the subject. I don't need studies--a set of pathetic, dejected eyes of some poor wretched creature is enough for me. That is all.0 -
"Hunter Gatherers?" Do you live in the year 10,000BC?0
-
lol"Hunter Gatherers?" Do you live in the year 10,000BC?
Campbell is in it for the $, same old...Activists In It For The Money?
Much like the Natural Law Party’s John Fagan rants against genetically improved foods to drive business to his food testing company, Dr. T. Colin Campbell, of the anti-meat Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and friends warn of the supposed dangers of dioxin in food (especially in meat) to drive business to Campbell’s dioxin testing company.October 9, 2001
Udder Nonsense
T. Colin Campbell grew up on a Virginia dairy farm, and came to consider milk “the nectar of life.” But after becoming a nutritional researcher, he changed his tune, and now says “it’s unnatural to drink milk.” Could this be because Campbell, who spread his anti-dairy views in a recent writeup in Discover, is president and CEO of Paracelsian — “a company that promotes holistic health and sells assays to measure dioxinlike chemicals and evaluate herbal products”?
Campbell is also a member of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), whose president, Neal Barnard tells Discover, “It would be hard to imagine a worse vehicle [than milk] for delivering calcium to the human body.” Of course, the same article quotes Gregory Miller of the National Dairy Council noting that PCRM is “essentially an animal rights organization” — one that has been repeatedly denounced by the American Medical Association, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the American Council on Science and Health, and others.
“People might think we’re nuts,” Campbell concedes. “But nondairy beverages and foods are pretty good once you adjust to the taste.”
and yeah, from Berman's site, but it's not hard to google to follow the $.0 -
I am totally missing the point about why you think T. Colin Campbell is all about the money. I just wrote to him a couple weeks ago on a technical point on protein and weight-restricted vegans. He was gracious and spent a lot of time emailing me back and forth. And he wasn't selling me anything, unlike the dairy council. There were no pictures of celebrities wearing green mustaches from drinking spinach smoothies. No banners saying 'Kale. It's a natural.' And he didn't even mention digoxin testing. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
I would really appreciate less quoting about why you think Campbell is all about the money, and more clarity in your own point of view on the subject.0 -
lol"Hunter Gatherers?" Do you live in the year 10,000BC?
Campbell is in it for the $, same old...Activists In It For The Money?
Much like the Natural Law Party’s John Fagan rants against genetically improved foods to drive business to his food testing company, Dr. T. Colin Campbell, of the anti-meat Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and friends warn of the supposed dangers of dioxin in food (especially in meat) to drive business to Campbell’s dioxin testing company.October 9, 2001
Udder Nonsense
T. Colin Campbell grew up on a Virginia dairy farm, and came to consider milk “the nectar of life.” But after becoming a nutritional researcher, he changed his tune, and now says “it’s unnatural to drink milk.” Could this be because Campbell, who spread his anti-dairy views in a recent writeup in Discover, is president and CEO of Paracelsian — “a company that promotes holistic health and sells assays to measure dioxinlike chemicals and evaluate herbal products”?
Campbell is also a member of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), whose president, Neal Barnard tells Discover, “It would be hard to imagine a worse vehicle [than milk] for delivering calcium to the human body.” Of course, the same article quotes Gregory Miller of the National Dairy Council noting that PCRM is “essentially an animal rights organization” — one that has been repeatedly denounced by the American Medical Association, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the American Council on Science and Health, and others.
“People might think we’re nuts,” Campbell concedes. “But nondairy beverages and foods are pretty good once you adjust to the taste.”
and yeah, from Berman's site, but it's not hard to google to follow the $.
+1
Just about everyone is in it for the money to a certain extent. Sisson, Robb Wolf etc. on the Paleo side, Ornish and so on. I should rephrase that, they all stand to gain financially from the success. I don't know what their motives are, they may be altruistic, but they probably don't mind the money too. Campbell is no more immune to this, and this illustrates that point for those who may point the finger at the Paleo guys saying they are "just in it for the money". I've seen that one plenty of times... Snore, I like money too... 0 -
This is exactly what I keep pointing out to people. Paleo is mainly just like vegan just with meat. So why is so much of the vegan communities wrath pointed at paleo instead of the main American diet on these forums?Hi! I'm VegesaurusRex's wife and the OP of this thread, which I might point out is about the mystery of why TDEE isn't higher in active hunter-gatherer populations as compared to typical Westerns working office jobs.
But, okay, I get it--tangents happen. I just want to say that I agree with anyone who avoids buying packaged food. Give me the produce aisle any day of the week. But, I also 'forage' the bulk food aisles in the natural food store for nuts, seeds, grains and beans. Right now, I'm setting up some rejuvalac to make some 'cheese' out of raw cashews. So, I agree with the idea of natural, whole foods, that are minimally processed. It seems to me that the paleos and the veg*ns here have much more in common than people eating the standard American diet. Can't this clashing of swords at least stop long enough to acknowledge that?0 -
Also I respect people who abstain from meat for ethical reasons but to be honest it looks to me like that's the main reasons people and cultures that have practiced it do and only sense the fat paranoia has it been health.0
-
This is exactly what I keep pointing out to people. Paleo is mainly just like vegan just with meat. So why is so much of the vegan communities wrath pointed at paleo instead of the main American diet on these forums?Hi! I'm VegesaurusRex's wife and the OP of this thread, which I might point out is about the mystery of why TDEE isn't higher in active hunter-gatherer populations as compared to typical Westerns working office jobs.
But, okay, I get it--tangents happen. I just want to say that I agree with anyone who avoids buying packaged food. Give me the produce aisle any day of the week. But, I also 'forage' the bulk food aisles in the natural food store for nuts, seeds, grains and beans. Right now, I'm setting up some rejuvalac to make some 'cheese' out of raw cashews. So, I agree with the idea of natural, whole foods, that are minimally processed. It seems to me that the paleos and the veg*ns here have much more in common than people eating the standard American diet. Can't this clashing of swords at least stop long enough to acknowledge that?
I believe it's a deep divide in the way the two groups see animals. Ethical vegans don't look at animals as meat-on-the-hoof. In other words, they don't objectify animals based on the ways they can benefit humans. Many vegans are abolitionist in their goals, i.e. they would like to see humans stop using animals to their own ends. So, they have a hard time seeing the similarities between paleos and themselves. Any idea why paleos may feel hostility towards vegans? That, I don't understand as much.0 -
This is exactly what I keep pointing out to people. Paleo is mainly just like vegan just with meat. So why is so much of the vegan communities wrath pointed at paleo instead of the main American diet on these forums?
Oh, you know.. people like to feel superior to others, would rather be right than happy, and so on. Why does anybody feel the need to point at someone else? People are silly... 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions