Hunter-gatherers vs Westerners
Replies
-
3) Complete lack of focus on intermittent fasting, which was almost certainly the normal dietary pattern in hunter-gatherer societies, and HAS been shown to provide a large number of health benefits. I suspect that many of the health problems we are seeing now are more a symptom of meal frequency (resulting in constantly elevated insulin levels) than of specific macro intakes.
Eh? IF is very popular in the Paleo and Primal communities. It's a common topic of discussion and many avid Paleo-dieters IF.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.0 -
It's not an issue with appetite, or leptin supplementation would be effective or weight loss (it's not). It's an issue with poor eating habits and lack of self-control. I eat 200ish g of sugar on workout days pretty regularly, and would be willing to bet that if we compare our relative health, body composition, strength, and endurance that I would come out ahead on all counts (I would be happy to be proven wrong here, but I have only ever met a handful of low carbers in better shape than myself, while the number of people who regularly eat 500-2000g of carb in a day who are in better shape is fairly large). If insulin is the devil, you need to avoid meat as well, since e. g. fatty cuts of beef produce as much of an insulin response as grains. Even Lyle McDonald (who literally wrote the book on ketogenic diets) isn't sold on them any more.
I'm glad you have it all figured out -- makes everything much easier when you know all the answers and everything fits neatly into your world view. But the researchers conducting the studies think additional research is warranted and while a low carb approach might not be required for everyone, for a whole lot of people having control of their appetite is a pretty big deal -- duluded and mislead though they might be.Wrong. Studies show that HIGH PROTEIN diets are correlated with weight loss. When caloric and protein intake are controlled for, there is no difference between high carb and low carb.
Low carb is pointless for most people on this site. If you like it, then great, go for it, but don't delude yourself and mislead others.
Conclusions. The rapid absorption of glucose after consumption of high-GI meals induces a sequence of hormonal and metabolic changes that promote excessive food intake in obese subjects. Additional studies are needed to examine the relationship between dietary GI and long-term body weight regulation. glycemic index, obesity, dietary carbohydrate, diets, insulin.
Lyle likes low carb diets for their better appetite suppression but he will say weight loss is all about a calorie deficit and that LC offers no magical metabolic advantage.
I don't think LC provides a metabolic advantage either in my humble opinion, sadly. If only it were that simple.
You do talk like someone who hasn't struggled to lose a lot of weight. Perhaps I am wrong and you're a 100+ lb loser or something, but I find the "self control" line often comes from those who have lost 10-20 pounds. Although at it's most basic it boils down to that, of course. If us fat b@stards had awesome self control we'd all do 1200 calorie diets (perhaps Lyle's fat burning diet) and lose the weight quickly and we'd all have six pack pictures in our profile. However, I suspect there is a lot more going on in relation to how we got fat to begin with. I have three siblings, they are all thin, my mother swears blind she didn't feed me any differently. Of course, we don't know that, she doesn't have food logs from when I was growing up, but I struggle to believe she overfed just me. I was an active child, a competitive swimmer, soccer player etc. I led an active outdoor lifestyle, yet I always struggled with weight. I saw a dietician in elementary school and was on diets when most kids were eating donuts for lunch. On the flip side you can argue I ate more, I HAD to have eaten more, but WHY did I eat more. Did I just have less self control than other kids? That's crazy, kids don't think like that. In fact, I was probably the only kid at the party NOT eating something because it was too high in calories.
I also don't have poor eating habits, my sister, 10 years my senior is a dietician, there were no ding dongs, twinkies, potato chips etc. in our house, my diet was tightly controlled. I would lose weight, but regain it easily. WHY would my body drive me to do that? My conscious mind certainly didn't, I hated being fat!
My gut feel is there is far more to this equation than we like to believe. For sure, weight loss for me right now means a calorie deficit, I know, I've done it, I've experimented carefully on myself, what works is a calorie deficit. I still have the outstanding question of WHY I am this way. I agree with SilverKittyKat that epigenetics could be one explanation, I've heard others.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.
True but it doesn't mean they are genetically different than us.
The environment can determine which genes are experessed. (If interested, look up Epigenetics. ) After many years and mutations, certain phenotypes which have survivability characteristics become dominant and recessive non-valuable characteristics disappear. The Inuits and Lapplanders have a superhuman ability to eat fat and meat and not get cancer or heart disease. They are different from other populations. Additionally the Trobriand Islanders mentioned previously probably also evolved similarly.
While I completely agree with the environment adding to the genes that are expressed, I'm not an Inuit or Lapplander, or Chinese, soooooo... I try to eat what I've adapted to and feel best with. Lots of dairy. I really don't care what others eat as they are not me, and do not share what I have evolved from.
To quote Moalem, "there is mounting evidence that where our ancestors came from, how they adapted to manage their environment, and where we live today all combine to have a significant impact on our health."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? lol0 -
While I completely agree with the environment adding to the genes that are expressed, I'm not an Inuit or Lapplander, or Chinese, soooooo... I try to eat what I've adapted to and feel best with. Lots of dairy. I really don't care what others eat as they are not me, and do not share what I have evolved from.
To quote Moalem, "there is mounting evidence that where our ancestors came from, how they adapted to manage their environment, and where we live today all combine to have a significant impact on our health."
Love this...
n=1 baby.0 -
The research about formerly overweight people burning fewer calories than a same weight, height, etc never overweight person has been around for many years. It's not new.0
-
While I completely agree with the environment adding to the genes that are expressed, I'm not an Inuit or Lapplander, or Chinese, soooooo... I try to eat what I've adapted to and feel best with. Lots of dairy. I really don't care what others eat as they are not me, and do not share what I have evolved from.
To quote Moalem, "there is mounting evidence that where our ancestors came from, how they adapted to manage their environment, and where we live today all combine to have a significant impact on our health."
Love this...
n=1 baby.
Love you! 0 -
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.
Very, very unlikely that the group reproduces only within.
In fact, most hunter-gatherer or nomadic groups have fairly elaborate rituals around marriage and movement within and across groups; often mating outside the group is preferred.0 -
It's not an issue with appetite, or leptin supplementation would be effective or weight loss (it's not). It's an issue with poor eating habits and lack of self-control. I eat 200ish g of sugar on workout days pretty regularly, and would be willing to bet that if we compare our relative health, body composition, strength, and endurance that I would come out ahead on all counts (I would be happy to be proven wrong here, but I have only ever met a handful of low carbers in better shape than myself, while the number of people who regularly eat 500-2000g of carb in a day who are in better shape is fairly large). If insulin is the devil, you need to avoid meat as well, since e. g. fatty cuts of beef produce as much of an insulin response as grains. Even Lyle McDonald (who literally wrote the book on ketogenic diets) isn't sold on them any more.
I'm glad you have it all figured out -- makes everything much easier when you know all the answers and everything fits neatly into your world view. But the researchers conducting the studies think additional research is warranted and while a low carb approach might not be required for everyone, for a whole lot of people having control of their appetite is a pretty big deal -- duluded and mislead though they might be.Wrong. Studies show that HIGH PROTEIN diets are correlated with weight loss. When caloric and protein intake are controlled for, there is no difference between high carb and low carb.
Low carb is pointless for most people on this site. If you like it, then great, go for it, but don't delude yourself and mislead others.
Conclusions. The rapid absorption of glucose after consumption of high-GI meals induces a sequence of hormonal and metabolic changes that promote excessive food intake in obese subjects. Additional studies are needed to examine the relationship between dietary GI and long-term body weight regulation. glycemic index, obesity, dietary carbohydrate, diets, insulin.
Lyle likes low carb diets for their better appetite suppression but he will say weight loss is all about a calorie deficit and that LC offers no magical metabolic advantage.
I don't think LC provides a metabolic advantage either in my humble opinion, sadly. If only it were that simple.
You do talk like someone who hasn't struggled to lose a lot of weight. Perhaps I am wrong and you're a 100+ lb loser or something, but I find the "self control" line often comes from those who have lost 10-20 pounds. Although at it's most basic it boils down to that, of course. If us fat b@stards had awesome self control we'd all do 1200 calorie diets (perhaps Lyle's fat burning diet) and lose the weight quickly and we'd all have six pack pictures in our profile. However, I suspect there is a lot more going on in relation to how we got fat to begin with. I have three siblings, they are all thin, my mother swears blind she didn't feed me any differently. Of course, we don't know that, she doesn't have food logs from when I was growing up, but I struggle to believe she overfed just me. I was an active child, a competitive swimmer, soccer player etc. I led an active outdoor lifestyle, yet I always struggled with weight. I saw a dietician in elementary school and was on diets when most kids were eating donuts for lunch. On the flip side you can argue I ate more, I HAD to have eaten more, but WHY did I eat more. Did I just have less self control than other kids? That's crazy, kids don't think like that. In fact, I was probably the only kid at the party NOT eating something because it was too high in calories.
I also don't have poor eating habits, my sister, 10 years my senior is a dietician, there were no ding dongs, twinkies, potato chips etc. in our house, my diet was tightly controlled. I would lose weight, but regain it easily. WHY would my body drive me to do that? My conscious mind certainly didn't, I hated being fat!
My gut feel is there is far more to this equation than we like to believe. For sure, weight loss for me right now means a calorie deficit, I know, I've done it, I've experimented carefully on myself, what works is a calorie deficit. I still have the outstanding question of WHY I am this way. I agree with SilverKittyKat that epigenetics could be one explanation, I've heard others.
This has been a really intersting debate, but this is the post that most resonates with me. I made a similar point in another thread. I was a fat baby, my cousin was born three months before me and had a slightly higher birth weight. By the time I was three months old and she was six months old I was much fatter than her. Was I just sneaking in more night-time binges on mummies boobies? Was my self control so poor and my activity level so low? hmmmm0 -
Wow! You are basing your health on the diet of a tribe of 200 people living on an island in the Pacific. What a huge sample! What a fine isolated community (ever hear of genetic drift?) And by the way, their diet was 70% CARBS! 10% PROTEIN, 20% SATURATED FAT. Sounds healthy to me. Maybe I'll just go an eat a stick of butter, followed by about 10 candy bars. Yum! I'll have a handful of nuts for my protein.
do you know what strawman means?
Yeah, do you know what non sequitur means?0 -
Maybe I'll just go an eat a stick of butter, followed by about 10 candy bars. Yum! I'll have a handful of nuts for my protein.
What the heck are you babbling about now? LOL
In terms of breakdown by category, this is the diet you are recommending. This is the same breakdown as your Trobriand Islanders.0 -
Sure, right. And how many hours do I have to waste trying to prove a negative. Forget it. If you can't prove you know what you are talking about, I will simply form a logical opinion about what you believe.
you are free to do that. Again I already posted them you said you would ignore them, so why would I go thru the trouble of posting them again. Your mind is already made up, and it's based on your bias toward the unhealthy lifestyle you are living.
Your posts were not by reputable scientists, in fact not even scientists. They were by people blogging and giving their own opinion. You said you had reputable scientists who had "debunked the China Study." Name one or simply admit that you don't know what you are talking about.0 -
Sure, right. And how many hours do I have to waste trying to prove a negative. Forget it. If you can't prove you know what you are talking about, I will simply form a logical opinion about what you believe.
You come on here, to a thread that had NOTHING to do with the paleo diet and start with your veggie propaganda, and your strawmen. I understand you veggies like to think you're superior to us meat eaters, but please keep it on your little veggie sites and leave the rest of us that live in the real world alone. I like to eat prey animals, I even like to go out and kill them myself. So while you're out there killing a poor defenseless cabbage, I'm killing a big fat juicy deer, big deal.
Wow! What a man! Do you also torture cats and dogs. I bet you even say you love animals. Creepy.0 -
********************
Wow! Knowing what you would and wouldn't do means you actually thought about it. Okay, so tell me how would you survive. No wait -don't tell me. We're back to eating worms and bugs aren't we?
*********************
Dang you ever get tired of being wrong, didn't your mommy ever tell you about making assumptions? I wouldn't take a rifle because I hunt with a bow, gee it's really just that simple, I don't live in the mountains with cantina wire surrounding my fort, and a stock pile of weapons and freeze dried food.
So you would bring a manufactured bow and industrial arrows. Wow! That is sure going native.0 -
so the only big difference in our diet is i eat real meat? and i dont think a diet of meat, fruit , vegetables nuts and tubers is new. but yes the name isits odd that a diet encouraging meat, vegetables, fruits and tubers is considered a fad. but a diet that includes fake soy meat is not.
90% of my diet consists of veggies,. fruits and nuts. Yup, I also eat processed soy products. As far as I know vegetarianism has been around since before Jesus Christ, so I would say it is well beyond the fad stage. The Paleo diet, however, despite its name is brand new.
I don't eat meat for ethical reasons.0 -
its odd that a diet encouraging meat, vegetables, fruits and tubers is considered a fad. but a diet that includes fake soy meat is not.
90% of my diet consists of veggies,. fruits and nuts. Yup, I also eat processed soy products. As far as I know vegetarianism has been around since before Jesus Christ, so I would say it is well beyond the fad stage. The Paleo diet, however, despite its name is brand new.
Really? Look up Pythagoreans, Essenes, Therapeutae, Naserenes, to name a few.
There is NO record of a vegetarian society, ever in history.
Sub societies and cults do not count. I'm talking long lived, thriving societies. Nice try though, hint I look things up before I post.
Bytheway, I forgot to mention the subcontinent of India.0 -
I would agree whole heartedly. Not only do we as a society eat way too much, but completely the wrong types of foods. I'm come to the conclusion that 90% of the food available to us is crap! Eveything availble to us as consumers contains preservatives, nitrates, refined sugar and flour, etc. Eating healthy is more time consuming and requires much diligence, that being said the rewards are worth it! Sure exercise plays a part, but I can't help but think its food and food alone causing the rise in obesity.
I agree. But exeercise has a role too.0 -
What is the "China Diet?" I have never heard of that.
The China Study, on the other had has yet to be seriously debunked. It has some problems, and Campbell the author of the study stated that given hindsight he might have done some things differently, but by no means did he ever state that his study had been "debunked." As far as I know, no one else with any scientific credentials has ever said that either.
Yes I meant China study, and really a person that did a study saying his study hasn't been debunked, now there's a shock.
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ (debunk)
http://www.foodrenegade.com/the-china-study-discredited/ (debunk)
http://freetheanimal.com/2010/07/t-colin-campbells-the-china-study-finally-exhaustively-discredited.html (debunk)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x5TKlTJLpE (and for those that can't read here is a you tube debunk)
Some of these overlap, please look at the links to actual studies, don't come back with these are just bloggers or whatever.
Right?! The China Study/ Campbell has been discredited for quite a while now.
Really? Here we go again. Kindly give me one source A CREDIBLE REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC SOURCE where that study has been discredited. I am not talking about some gal's blog where she wants to show off her statistics 102.0 -
http://jonnybowdenblog.com/why-i-am-not-a-vegetarian/“China Study” by Campbell represents, as mentioned, his conclusions about this data – conclusions which have been fiercely debated, by the way. He uses hand selected, cherry picked data from the study to support his rabid pro-vegan position and leaves out everything that contradicts it.(Campbell is associated with Physicians for Responsible Medicine, a vegan animal rights group masquerading as a responsible medical organization.)At one point, defending his “anti-animal protein” position, Campbell quoted a study done at Harvard University which, he said, had reached the exact same conclusion that he, Campbell, had reached. Even Harvard researchers agreed with him, was the implication.
A man sitting at the other end of the dais got up and introduced himself. “Excuse me, Dr. Campbell”, said the man.”I happened to be the lead researcher on that study you mentioned. And we made no such conclusions” It was David Ludwig, MD, of Harvard University.What I find interesting about the “China Study” is that it also compltely contradicts everything that my Chinese friends tell me about what they eat “back home”. Fish, eggs, chickens, and pork, PORK! They love all of these things, they’d love more beef too when they can afford it. China is one of the least vegetarian countries on Earth.
Yippidippidoo. Nice stories, even if some of them are made up. Again, I ask you for a link to a REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC SOURCE that "DEBUNKS" The China Study. I don't want somebody's opinion, I want a reasoned analysis.0 -
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-06/30/content_12806270.htm
And this vegan, sharing his troubles finding good veggie foods in China, you know that country where most are vegeterian, or did I get you wrong on that?I was a Ph.D. Research scholar to China as part of India-China Cultural Exchange program. The day I landed in Xiamen University, I couldn't find anything to eat for a vegetarian.I was a Ph.D. Research scholar to China as part of India-China Cultural Exchange program. The day I landed in Xiamen University, I couldn't find anything to eat for a vegetarian.
The rural areas of China are vegetarian. The urban areas are not. If you had actually read the China Study you would know that. The Universities are located in cities. And even in Shanghai, you can find plenty of vegetarian food.0 -
Freerange are we getting vegetarianism confused with vegan-ism? A lot of vegetarians will eat fish and eggs.
A little. But to be technical if they eat animal products they are not vegetarian, vegans carry it to another level, they "try" to avoid all contact with anything that comes from, or caused the death of an animal. As in the cloths they wear, the makeup they use, etc, etc.
To be clear I have no problem with veggies (I lump them all in the same boat) as long as they leave me alone and don't try to force me to live my life as they see fit. My problem is with the militant, my way or the highway, killing bambi is bad, eating tofu is holy, crowd that I despise.
Just as I dislike the crowd that enjoys killing and torturing animals and calling that a sport.
Bytheway, no vegetarian eats fish.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.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.
True but it doesn't mean they are genetically different than us.
The environment can determine which genes are experessed. (If interested, look up Epigenetics. ) After many years and mutations, certain phenotypes which have survivability characteristics become dominant and recessive non-valuable characteristics disappear. The Inuits and Lapplanders have a superhuman ability to eat fat and meat and not get cancer or heart disease. They are different from other populations. Additionally the Trobriand Islanders mentioned previously probably also evolved similarly.
While I completely agree with the environment adding to the genes that are expressed, I'm not an Inuit or Lapplander, or Chinese, soooooo... I try to eat what I've adapted to and feel best with. Lots of dairy. I really don't care what others eat as they are not me, and do not share what I have evolved from.
To quote Moalem, "there is mounting evidence that where our ancestors came from, how they adapted to manage their environment, and where we live today all combine to have a significant impact on our health."
The environment can deffinitely affect phenotype. Over time certain alleles can be mutated and genotype can be changed. In the short run, certain genes can be turned off epigenetically, affecting phenotype. It is fascinating the way it works.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.0 -
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.
Very, very unlikely that the group reproduces only within.
In fact, most hunter-gatherer or nomadic groups have fairly elaborate rituals around marriage and movement within and across groups; often mating outside the group is preferred.
Not if they live on an island in the middle of the Pacific, or on the frozen tundra of the Artic.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.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.0 -
Maybe I'll just go an eat a stick of butter, followed by about 10 candy bars. Yum! I'll have a handful of nuts for my protein.
What the heck are you babbling about now? LOL
In terms of breakdown by category, this is the diet you are recommending. This is the same breakdown as your Trobriand Islanders.
This just shows your ignorance we don't eat a stick of butter, and sure as heck don't eat candy bars. If you bothered to do any research at all you would know that source matters more than macro to us.0 -
Sure, right. And how many hours do I have to waste trying to prove a negative. Forget it. If you can't prove you know what you are talking about, I will simply form a logical opinion about what you believe.
you are free to do that. Again I already posted them you said you would ignore them, so why would I go thru the trouble of posting them again. Your mind is already made up, and it's based on your bias toward the unhealthy lifestyle you are living.
Your posts were not by reputable scientists, in fact not even scientists. They were by people blogging and giving their own opinion. You said you had reputable scientists who had "debunked the China Study." Name one or simply admit that you don't know what you are talking about.
And this shows your lack of comprehension or reading ability one of the two. I said you have to go to the internal links to find what you are looking for. Because you refuse to do so tells a lot. And again the last link I posted was from a Dr. again, since you put so much faith if letters behind someones name.0
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
- 426 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