Hunter-gatherers vs Westerners

tidmutt

Not sure if you're trolling, but I'll bite. To do effective studies on nutrition, you need to have multiple trials in a controlled environment with many participants in which all factors can be accounted for. That would be hard to do outside of a research university.

It's basically impossible to do what you described with human beings. However, studying the whole animal all at once is not the only way. We can use a bottom up approach, eventually we will reverse engineer the entire human body, probably not in our lifetimes though. Then we can understand the mechanisms and how they interact. That's the ultimate goal of the science of human biology IMO.

These studies so often performed using food questionnaires, following people for a few months etc. are so problematic, yet we run around acting like the conclusions drawn from them are rock solid science... scary. The entire low fat heart health dogma was preached to the public based on almost no evidence a few decades ago, that's scary too.

I've read plenty of well controlled scientific studies that back up the most well established nutritional recommendations using biomarkers rather than questionnaires. These studies have helped established mechanisms for how the metabolism of nutrients work. Which, yes, is what I would view as the ultimate goal of the science of human biology as well. Sure, there's plenty of research that still needs to be done, and every study has limitations and potential for error, but I believe these controlled studies are the best way of establishing those mechanisms.

Oh, don't get me wrong, a well designed study, especially if you can feed the subjects and not just question them on what they ate etc. is still a useful tool. I think there are current nutritional recommendations that are not backed up by well controlled studies, or should I say there were studies but their support for the recommendation is week. The lipid hypothesis is one of them.

freerange

So in your opinion, anyone who has actually seriously studied a subject, has done novel high impact work in the field, and who has established credentials is a "peter pan?" Is this part of another Paleo fairy tale?

Nope you set the bar so high that it's impossible to provide you with what you want. How about these three guys, you think the're "experts"? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison. After all none of them had PHD's hell they never even graduated from College.

Not sure if you're trolling, but I'll bite. To do effective studies on nutrition, you need to have multiple trials in a controlled environment with many participants in which all factors can be accounted for. That would be hard to do outside of a research university.

True but it doesn't take an egg head with multibal degrees to understand a study or to debunk crappy information

freerange

So in your opinion, anyone who has actually seriously studied a subject, has done novel high impact work in the field, and who has established credentials is a "peter pan?" Is this part of another Paleo fairy tale?

Nope you set the bar so high that it's impossible to provide you with what you want. How about these three guys, you think the're "experts"? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison. After all none of them had PHD's hell they never even graduated from College.

Nor are any of them known as experts on diet, nutrition and diabetes/obesity research. If you want an informed opinion on an ACADEMIC subject, then you need someone with academic credentials,

SO now it's just diet, any ol hack can be an expert in any field,,,,,,,,, except one you're arguing about?

freerange

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.

Please, of scientific one, please provide the exact quote of any "expert" saying the paleo diet is "awful"

I have already posted several articles. Read them,

Oh no, I want the exact quote, "paleo diet is awful" Yoiu are so good at demanding exact links, poney up.

Okay, then try reading what I linked to. Oh, wait. Since asking you to do that might be challenging and difficult for you, I will reprint it for you:

"Experts took issue with the diet on every measure. Regardless of the goal—weight loss, heart health, or finding a diet that’s easy to follow—most experts concluded that it would be better for dieters to look elsewhere. “A true Paleo diet might be a great option: very lean, pure meats, lots of wild plants,” said one expert—quickly adding, however, that duplicating such a regimen in modern times would be difficult."

Nope don't see the word awful in that quote. So you were lying when you said that?

Look, I've agreed to play nice, If you want to be an idiot, go ahead, but you sure are not doing your cause any good, If you can argue rationally, which I haven't seen yet, then join in. Otherwise just continue playing the fool and we can all have a good laugh,

Play nice, as in, calling people that have a different lifestyle than you, killers, crule, turtorers, getting an erection when hunting? Is that how you play nice.

Carry on oh great one.

freerange

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?

Not really,
1 you will never find a Paleo trying to legeslate their diet on others
2 you will never find a Paleo doing it for Missplaced moral or ethical reasons
3 other that popking fun at their missplace moral superiority complex you will never find a paleo calling somone a torturer, killer, or throwing blood on them at fasion shows.
[/quote]



I have been a veg*n for almost 40 years.

1. I don't legislate anything, other than a curfew for my teens.
2. I don't use words like 'misplaced' when talking about other people's values. It's rude and disrespectful.
3. Paleos are a diverse group. Why would anyone presume to speak for them?
4. Why dredge up old stereotypes about throwing blood on furs at fashion shows? I resent being stereotyped just as much as you do.
[/quote]

1 you didn't point your post at me, you pointed it at "paleo" I responded in kind
2 sterio types are there for a reason, a vocal majority of Vegans are just as I described, my guess is your husband included
3 misplaced correctly describes anyone that denies what humans are (omnivors) and assumes a moral high ground for doing so

freerange

The whole point of Paleo is that it is supposed to be based on what our ancestors ate. The Paleo founders relied mostly on data from MODERN "hunter gatherers." Not only did they ignore most anthropological evidence, but they misinterpreted the data they did have:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/3/665.long

A recent article in Nature (not available free) was reviewed by the New York Times):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/science/australopithecus-sediba-preferred-forest-foods-fossil-teeth-suggest.html?_r=1

There is overwhelming evidence that early man was primarily vegetarian.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20019285

My biggest problem with Paleo is that what they do seems to ignore what they say. Humans are physiologically herbivores, and our diet for millions of years has been primarily plant based. Even Neanderthals relied mostly on plants:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21187393

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20956317



Okay, I agree with the concept that we evolved to eat a certain diet, and that we would probably have better health eating that diet. The Problem is that Paleos don't. It is doubtful that meat was more than 1% of early man's diet. If Paleos practiced what they preached, that would be their diet as well.

More vegan propaganda, you really need to read more than just from vegsourse

tidmutt

So in your opinion, anyone who has actually seriously studied a subject, has done novel high impact work in the field, and who has established credentials is a "peter pan?" Is this part of another Paleo fairy tale?

Nope you set the bar so high that it's impossible to provide you with what you want. How about these three guys, you think the're "experts"? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison. After all none of them had PHD's hell they never even graduated from College.

Not sure if you're trolling, but I'll bite. To do effective studies on nutrition, you need to have multiple trials in a controlled environment with many participants in which all factors can be accounted for. That would be hard to do outside of a research university.

It's basically impossible to do what you described with human beings. However, studying the whole animal all at once is not the only way. We can use a bottom up approach, eventually we will reverse engineer the entire human body, probably not in our lifetimes though. Then we can understand the mechanisms and how they interact. That's the ultimate goal of the science of human biology IMO.

These studies so often performed using food questionnaires, following people for a few months etc. are so problematic, yet we run around acting like the conclusions drawn from them are rock solid science... scary. The entire low fat heart health dogma was preached to the public based on almost no evidence a few decades ago, that's scary too.

I know that this site has a pro-vegan bias, so I am reluctantly linking to it for fear that I will be accused of 'spin.' I just happen to know about this site, so my apologies for the bias:

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-women-should-eat-to-live-longer/

This longitudinal study goes back to 1976. It probably suffers some inaccuracy due to research methodology, like dietary recall. Still, I think the protective role of fiber and the deleterious effect of dietary cholesterol are worth noting. Studies of 35+ years duration are pretty darn good.

I can't watch the video right now, but I'm assuming this is the nurses health study? There is value in this research for sure, I would still like to see someone figure out the mechanisms underlying what is going on. The Nurses Health study is one held up as showing the link between CHD and saturated fat consumption, but what's interesting is that saturated fat raises HDL and LDL, and then their is LDL particle density which there is no way they measured since this test is still not in wide-spread use due to cost and was not generally available in the 70s and 80s, probably 90s too. Now I've seen reports of different types of HDL particles. The oxidized LDL particles are likely the ones contributing to atherosclerosis but different types of nutrition will raise of lower these types of LDL. It's just not a simple picture.

tidmutt

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

I would go eve further and say all studies are false. Unless you accurately test each person on the planet for whatever you are testing, the results are going to be an estimate, and not 100%.

Which is why a single study is never used to create nutritional recommendations. This article is a nice summary of what makes a research claim more likely to be accurate- large number of studies, narrow focus, large number of subjects, ect. These studies often state their own limitations and make suggestions for future research that could lead to more conclusive results.

Yes, I see that all the time. This study has XYZ limitations, caution should be applied when interpreting the results, yadda, more studies needed. Sadly, the press often run with these conclusions anyway because it sells newspapers and drives up blog hit counts. Suddenly the public is running around saying drinking diet soda makes you gain weight.

Sorry, that's a little off topic, but then this whole thread is off topic.

tidmutt

@Tidmutt: That's super interesting about the role of legumes in paleo. This is news to me.

On a personal note, any guy who finds a method to drop 58 pounds earns my respect. I'm glad you dropped the unholy trinity of salt-sugar-fat in any combination. This is layer-upon-layer of brain stimulating hell, which makes your brain behave like it's in the presence of a potent drug. A little isn't enough to satisfy; it's only a start. So, know that I understand your attachment to paleo: it has worked for you.

Why thank you ma'am.

I did lose a lot of weight using Paleo, although in the interest of full disclosure, I actually tried different diets for a month at a time and was able to lose weight on each of them. A month probably wasn't long enough, but my devotion to my own n=1 experiment was less than my desire to just lose the weight. Paleo/Primal was the most satisfying diet overall and led to me eating the best nutrient profile. I didn't try veggie or vegan to be honest.

VegesaurusRex

Tidmutt, I will be happy to continue this discussion with you, and any other intelligent Paleo, but one of your compadres here is a total moron, and I won't mention names. I am putting him on ignore.

tidmutt

One thing I've wondered about with vegans is the reasoning behind not eating eggs. Is it because it represents the potential for a life form? It's not like it hurt the Hen to produce it, especially if say you had your own in your backyard. I'm not talking about whether you think eggs are healthy, I'm referring to the ethical reasons for avoiding eggs.

VegesaurusRex

One thing I've wondered about with vegans is the reasoning behind not eating eggs. Is it because it represents the potential for a life form? It's not like it hurt the Hen to produce it, especially if say you had your own in your backyard. I'm not talking about whether you think eggs are healthy, I'm referring to the ethical reasons for avoiding eggs.

I can only speak for myself. First, eggs are not a vegetable. Second, I don't like eggs. Third, if I ate eggs I wouldn't be a vegan. Actually I probably am not. If I am out of the house, and someone offers me a piece of cake that was made with eggs, I will probably eat it, Anyway, I won't object on moral or ethical grounds. Same with milk, although I won't buy it or drink it and I don't like it. Honey, I like, and I eat. Many vegans would say I am not vegan for that reason alone.

In any event I am morally and ethically opposed to eating meat because, as I have said many times, it causes pain to sentient beings. Eggs cannot be considered sentient beings, and milk isn't even an organism, but they are both byproducts of the meat industry. If animals weren't slaughtered, there would be no milk. And eggs primarily come from factory farms, which are nothing more than concentration camps for chickens.

Need2bfit918

One thing I've wondered about with vegans is the reasoning behind not eating eggs. Is it because it represents the potential for a life form? It's not like it hurt the Hen to produce it, especially if say you had your own in your backyard. I'm not talking about whether you think eggs are healthy, I'm referring to the ethical reasons for avoiding eggs.

i have wondered about this too. i know a woman who has chickens that she treats like children. she even has air conditioning and a heater in the chicken coop. she even takes care of the ones that are no longer producing eggs they are pets to her. so whats wrong with her eating the eggs? the chickens are not mistreated.

VegesaurusRex

One thing I've wondered about with vegans is the reasoning behind not eating eggs. Is it because it represents the potential for a life form? It's not like it hurt the Hen to produce it, especially if say you had your own in your backyard. I'm not talking about whether you think eggs are healthy, I'm referring to the ethical reasons for avoiding eggs.

i have wondered about this too. i know a woman who has chickens that she treats like children. she even has air conditioning and a heater in the chicken coop. she even takes care of the ones that are no longer producing eggs they are pets to her. so whats wrong with her eating the eggs? the chickens are not mistreated.

In that case, I guess nothing is wrong with eating the eggs. But some vegans might still disagree, because even there one could be said to be exploiting animals. Many vegans also have moral objections to, for example, riding a horse. I don't, for pretty much the same reason as in your example. Everyone I know who owns horses treats them very well.

_VoV

One thing I've wondered about with vegans is the reasoning behind not eating eggs. Is it because it represents the potential for a life form? It's not like it hurt the Hen to produce it, especially if say you had your own in your backyard. I'm not talking about whether you think eggs are healthy, I'm referring to the ethical reasons for avoiding eggs.

i have wondered about this too. i know a woman who has chickens that she treats like children. she even has air conditioning and a heater in the chicken coop. she even takes care of the ones that are no longer producing eggs they are pets to her. so whats wrong with her eating the eggs? the chickens are not mistreated.

Eggs require hens, but not roosters. Most people think that the male chicks are kept and raised for meat, but in fact some chicken breeds are considered 'meat chickens' and others are 'layers'. So what happens to the male chicks after they are sorted out? In a word, they are killed. Sometimes, they are thrown into a garbage can alive to smother to death. Other times they are placed on a conveyer belt leading to a huge grinding machine, and they are ground up alive. Here's an article about it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/01/chicks-being-ground-up-al_n_273652.html

I personally love eggs--omelets are my favorite. But, these sorting practices and the callous, cruel ways male chicks are disposed of, are the reasons I don't eat them. Even families who raise chickens in their backyards as pets, and treat them lovingly, are buying pre-sorted chickens, for the most part. Some city bylaws even prohibit roosters in suburban areas. So, the mistake of being born a male chicken of the 'laying type' extends even to chickens living in the darling backyard coops which seem to be cropping up everywhere.

Caveat: I am not up for an argument on this. I am merely explaining 'why vegans don't eat eggs.'

SPNLuver83

I'm pretty sure us Westerners aren't the only ones with a modern lifestyle.... Why the article is named that is beyond me.

Need2bfit918

One thing I've wondered about with vegans is the reasoning behind not eating eggs. Is it because it represents the potential for a life form? It's not like it hurt the Hen to produce it, especially if say you had your own in your backyard. I'm not talking about whether you think eggs are healthy, I'm referring to the ethical reasons for avoiding eggs.

i have wondered about this too. i know a woman who has chickens that she treats like children. she even has air conditioning and a heater in the chicken coop. she even takes care of the ones that are no longer producing eggs they are pets to her. so whats wrong with her eating the eggs? the chickens are not mistreated.

Eggs require hens, but not roosters. Most people think that the male chicks are kept and raised for meat, but in fact some chicken breeds are considered 'meat chickens' and others are 'layers'. So what happens to the male chicks after they are sorted out? In a word, they are killed. Sometimes, they are thrown into a garbage can alive to smother to death. Other times they are placed on a conveyer belt leading to a huge grinding machine, and they are ground up alive. Here's an article about it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/01/chicks-being-ground-up-al_n_273652.html

I personally love eggs--omelets are my favorite. But, these sorting practices and the callous, cruel ways male chicks are disposed of, are the reasons I don't eat them. Even families who raise chickens in their backyards as pets, and treat them lovingly, are buying pre-sorted chickens, for the most part. Some city bylaws even prohibit roosters in suburban areas. So, the mistake of being born a male chicken of the 'laying type' extends even to chickens living in the darling backyard coops which seem to be cropping up everywhere.

Caveat: I am not up for an argument on this. I am merely explaining 'why vegans don't eat eggs.'

i do admit that in the egg, and dairy industry your life span will be short if your born male. i was raised around the dairy industry and some of the stuff even rubbed me wrong. but it can be done humanely if someone wants to.

_VoV

@Need2bfit918: Yes, there is a dairy/veal industry counterpart. This is the main reason vegans don't eat dairy products. It's death once removed, if you will. Plus, spent dairy cows aren't rewarded for their service once they are too old to produce a lot of milk. It's off to the slaughterhouse with them.

Thank you for the opportunity to explain a point about veganism that is reasonably obscure and complex. Most people just don't want to know.

Edit: I think it's wishful thinking that farmers would 'want' to do things differently by raising the male animals to adulthood. It's simply an economic loser. The public is accustomed to buying eggs and dairy pretty cheaply, and truly humane farming practices would mean much higher prices at the grocery store.

slkehl

Just curious: are you involved in any scientific studies? You seem to have more than average knowledge about how studies are conducted.

The place I go for undergrad really emphasizes that if we want to be knowledgeable in our field, we need to be able to read and understand the scientific lit. So its used in most classes in some form, plus a couple of research classes were required for my major.

Yes, I see that all the time. This study has XYZ limitations, caution should be applied when interpreting the results, yadda, more studies needed. Sadly, the press often run with these conclusions anyway because it sells newspapers and drives up blog hit counts. Suddenly the public is running around saying drinking diet soda makes you gain weight.

Exactly. Very sad how the media takes advantage of these studies. Like those raspberry ketones are being sold off of a couple studies involving differences rat weight gain when fed tremendous amounts. Yet it's the new weight loss miracle? Oh and lets not forget it costs pennies to make that "expensive" synthetic raspberry ketone extract. Very irresponsible.

Sorry for getting off topic...

My view on Paleo-the whole "eating as our ancestors did" seems a little sketch, but whether or not that's accurate, the actual recommendations look perfectly healthy to me. Much better than what most of America is eating. My biggest concern is that people will view it as a short term fix and gain everything back as soon as they go off of it.

tidmutt

My view on Paleo-the whole "eating as our ancestors did" seems a little sketch, but whether or not that's accurate, the actual recommendations look perfectly healthy to me. Much better than what most of America is eating. My biggest concern is that people will view it as a short term fix and gain everything back as soon as they go off of it.

Oh believe me, as someone who has been overweight since he was a kid, I've done the yo-yo thing so many times. It really applies to any diet, it needs to be a lifestyle change, not a quick fix. You have to change your whole attitude, your relationship with food and exercise. Going from obese to thin is truly one of the hardest things to achieve IMO. It seems to be the answer to the problem is to avoid being obese to begin with which is why I'm so interested in epigenetics and childhood obesity. We need to solve the problem at the root cause.