For those on LCHF/Paleo here is a cool infographic
Replies
-
I agree with you btw. The combination of refined carbs, fat, sugar and salt is pretty irresistible it appears in NA considering it's the 900lb gorilla and poster boy for consuming those foods. these also happen to be pretty cheap for producers to get their hands on as well (heavily subsidized). Eliminate those foods, and someone has a better opportunity to adhere to calorie restriction and most low/er carb studies show this in ad libitum situations, are there exceptions, sure.
That's true for 90% of diets and has nothing to do with the actual diet but the person ability to adhere to that diet. People even fail lifestyle changes, why because it's hard to break old habits.Cute infographic or peer reviewed medical journal?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/985705-paleo-diet-assoc-with-negchanges-to-bloodlipid-in-healthysub
EDIT: I don't respond well to things waving in my face. Unless it's pie.
Did you actually read the thesis?
I pretty much agree with much of it. It states that a Paleo style diet has many positive characteristics to application for obese / type II diabetic populations to include high levels of satiety, freedom from the burden of calorie counting, glycemic control and favourable body composition all whilst eating ad libitum.
It quite rightly in my opinion raises the question of whether healthy, active populations should be ramping up fat intake in particular excessively (I don't think they should unless there is a specific medical reason to crowd out carbs and replace with something else and the thesis readily acknowledges that further study is necessary to determine if macronutrient control should be advised upon - I think yes.)
Finally you will note the limitations in terms of determining what will happen over the long term, the lack of control of food intake and the modest amount of food logs returned (only 8) which was then extrapolated across the whole group.)
Double finally, I think the infographic is a bit simplistic as well.
How many times do we have to read the story of someone doing well for a time on paleo, then stalling out or gaining again? Paleo is fine if you can afford it, but there is nothing magical about it that allows you to defy basic thermodynamics. Put more energy into a system than you take out, and it grows.
I adhered 100% to paleo restrictions but didn't limit portions. I ate like a fat caveman. I don't have a photo of the results because I was too embarrassed to take one. That's when I started doing real research not aimed at finding a loophole that would allow me to get out of portion control and continue my overeating.
Now I adhere 100% to portion control and don't restrict food choices beyond the high protein requirement.
Since paleo "frees you from calorie counting" it will, unless one also practices calorie restriction to actually lose weight consistently in the long term, also free you from the burden of having a six pack. Further, eating carbs including wheat and other grains, as well as legumes, will not interfere with fat loss or encourage new fat stores.
I find it laughable when someone practices calorie restriction, reaches their goals, then attributes it to a magic diet based on pseudoscience. The underlying agent of change is application of the laws of thermodynamics to create a less complex energy system by letting out some energy at a faster rate than it is put into the system. Yes, food choices can make slight changes in composition, but if you switch to paleo and don't actually apply a calorie deficit, that is exactly what you get: small changes.0 -
Livestrong is not a credible source. They very frequently have articles posted that completely contradict each other.0
-
A calorie is not a calorie. That's factually incorrect. Thermal Effect of Food makes that statement patently false. You can argue the magnitude of TEF and whether it matters, but you CANNOT state that a calorie is a calorie regardless of macro type.
Argue with that.0 -
I'm going to eat bacon, eggs and a bagel. Wash that down with coffee, and a pop tart. Will be a good breakfast! :flowerforyou:0
-
I don't think that was her argument. I believe the poster meant that not all calories are created equal, just a guess though.A calorie is not a calorie. That's factually incorrect. Thermal Effect of Food makes that statement patently false. You can argue the magnitude of TEF and whether it matters, but you CANNOT state that a calorie is a calorie regardless of macro type.
Argue with that.0 -
Relying on thermogenic foods to lose weight or control it is a joke. It's never going to produce results because you gain energy on each transaction and you don't wind up using more energy to digest the less thermogenic foods you eat alongside the thermogenic ones. It's just more pseudoscience that fails to realize metabolism is a set of discreet chemical reactions lumped together for conceptual reasons.
@neanderthin we are now on the same page. The salt, fat, sugar combo is like a drug. I actually feel both salt and refined sugar should be removed from the GRAS list and regulated as potentially harmful substances, because they are.
Like I said, I have nothing against paleo, but I do have a big problem with the wild claims and the tautology that can lead to some pretty stupid choices (like eliminating beans when you can just eat and enzyme from Aspergilus niger to go with it). I also reject the idea that everything was hunky-dory and wonderful and healthy in ancestral times. Misery and illness are part of the human condition and it's also really typical for people to imagine its all due to our modern ways, whether because we have offended the gods or because we started eating grains.0 -
Relying on thermogenic foods to lose weight or control it is a joke. It's never going to produce results because you gain energy on each transaction and you don't wind up using more energy to digest the less thermogenic foods you eat alongside the thermogenic ones. It's just more pseudoscience that fails to realize metabolism is a set of discreet chemical reactions lumped together for conceptual reasons.
@neanderthin we are now on the same page. The salt, fat, sugar combo is like a drug. I actually feel both salt and refined sugar should be removed from the GRAS list and regulated as potentially harmful substances, because they are.
Like I said, I have nothing against paleo, but I do have a big problem with the wild claims and the tautology that can lead to some pretty stupid choices (like eliminating beans when you can just eat and enzyme from Aspergilus niger to go with it). I also reject the idea that everything was hunky-dory and wonderful and healthy in ancestral times. Misery and illness are part of the human condition and it's also really typical for people to imagine its all due to our modern ways, whether because we have offended the gods or because we started eating grains.
i just don't see how you can prove that's true until we settled down into communities and created agriculture. Killed by sabertooth tigers? sure. by misery and illness? I've never seen proof of that.0 -
Since paleo "frees you from calorie counting" it will, unless one also practices calorie restriction to actually lose weight consistently in the long term, also free you from the burden of having a six pack. Further, eating carbs including wheat and other grains, as well as legumes, will not interfere with fat loss or encourage new fat stores.
also - i have a sixpack0 -
Since paleo "frees you from calorie counting" it will, unless one also practices calorie restriction to actually lose weight consistently in the long term, also free you from the burden of having a six pack. Further, eating carbs including wheat and other grains, as well as legumes, will not interfere with fat loss or encourage new fat stores.
also - i have a sixpack
Because you don't eat too much. Did you start out overweight, switch to paleo with no calorie restriction, and get to where you are now?
Tell you what, lets try something. I will select all your food, following paleo rules strictly, but you will have to eat at a surplus of 3000 calories per day. In 6 months we can check in your six pack. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.0 -
A calorie isn't a calorie isn't a calorie. Protein, fat and carbohydrates all affect your body in different ways, chemically speaking.
For some people, carbohydrates trigger overeating and binging and being on a LCHF diet can lead to steady insulin levels, reduce hunger and overall less calories taken in for the day. See: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81gPAyL9CJL.png
The human body has a very quick digestive process for carbohydrates and a very quick and easy mechanism to turn sugars and starches into fat if they are not soon used as fuel or in other scenarios. The human body has a slower way to turn excess protein into glucose and from there into fat, if it is not used. Dietary fat is very difficult to turn into body fat.
Paleo is NOT low-carb-high-fat. A ketogenic diet can be paleo, and paleo CAN BE ketogenic, but they are not one and the same. If you got fat on paleo, cool story, that's not keto. I haven't heard of a single scenario where someone following a ketogenic diet has gained body fat unless they're secretly binging on donuts and cake and bread and pasta and potatoes and candy all the time (my girlfriend had a really hard time with the amount of beef and butter I eat due to sweet tooth cravings, so she has since switched to an IIFYM calorie counting dietary restriction).
Agreed, paleo is not a low carb diet it just helps to teach you where to get your good carbs from for those of us that are used to grabbing a bagel and calling it healthy. you get all your needed macro/micro nutrients and it is a healthy sustainable long term way to eat. If you got fat on paleo you were doing it wrong.0 -
Relying on thermogenic foods to lose weight or control it is a joke. It's never going to produce results because you gain energy on each transaction and you don't wind up using more energy to digest the less thermogenic foods you eat alongside the thermogenic ones. It's just more pseudoscience that fails to realize metabolism is a set of discreet chemical reactions lumped together for conceptual reasons.
@neanderthin we are now on the same page. The salt, fat, sugar combo is like a drug. I actually feel both salt and refined sugar should be removed from the GRAS list and regulated as potentially harmful substances, because they are.
Like I said, I have nothing against paleo, but I do have a big problem with the wild claims and the tautology that can lead to some pretty stupid choices (like eliminating beans when you can just eat and enzyme from Aspergilus niger to go with it). I also reject the idea that everything was hunky-dory and wonderful and healthy in ancestral times. Misery and illness are part of the human condition and it's also really typical for people to imagine its all due to our modern ways, whether because we have offended the gods or because we started eating grains.
i just don't see how you can prove that's true until we settled down into communities and created agriculture. Killed by sabertooth tigers? sure. by misery and illness? I've never seen proof of that.
Here you go. It's the Horus study published recently in the lancet. It shows atherosclerosis in various ancient populations regardless of diet.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60598-X/abstract
Really, why would you assume people didn't have disease back in the day? Maybe because the garden of Eden myth is so strong?
Here is another bit of news, an ice mummy showing the person likely suffered greatly from tooth decay
http://www.livescience.com/28608-otzi-iceman-had-bad-teeth.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Livesciencecom+(LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed)
Animals also have disease. It's a universal condition.0 -
A calorie isn't a calorie isn't a calorie. Protein, fat and carbohydrates all affect your body in different ways, chemically speaking.
For some people, carbohydrates trigger overeating and binging and being on a LCHF diet can lead to steady insulin levels, reduce hunger and overall less calories taken in for the day. See: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81gPAyL9CJL.png
The human body has a very quick digestive process for carbohydrates and a very quick and easy mechanism to turn sugars and starches into fat if they are not soon used as fuel or in other scenarios. The human body has a slower way to turn excess protein into glucose and from there into fat, if it is not used. Dietary fat is very difficult to turn into body fat.
Paleo is NOT low-carb-high-fat. A ketogenic diet can be paleo, and paleo CAN BE ketogenic, but they are not one and the same. If you got fat on paleo, cool story, that's not keto. I haven't heard of a single scenario where someone following a ketogenic diet has gained body fat unless they're secretly binging on donuts and cake and bread and pasta and potatoes and candy all the time (my girlfriend had a really hard time with the amount of beef and butter I eat due to sweet tooth cravings, so she has since switched to an IIFYM calorie counting dietary restriction).
Agreed, paleo is not a low carb diet it just helps to teach you where to get your good carbs from for those of us that are used to grabbing a bagel and calling it healthy. you get all your needed macro/micro nutrients and it is a healthy sustainable long term way to eat. If you got fat on paleo you were doing it wrong.
I ate meat, vegetables, and fruit. Which of those aren't paleo? Of course, I can slam down a leg of lamb in a day, like a good caveman.0 -
these studies don't go far back enough. agriculture began around 10,000 years ago, and the first study goes back 4,000.Relying on thermogenic foods to lose weight or control it is a joke. It's never going to produce results because you gain energy on each transaction and you don't wind up using more energy to digest the less thermogenic foods you eat alongside the thermogenic ones. It's just more pseudoscience that fails to realize metabolism is a set of discreet chemical reactions lumped together for conceptual reasons.
@neanderthin we are now on the same page. The salt, fat, sugar combo is like a drug. I actually feel both salt and refined sugar should be removed from the GRAS list and regulated as potentially harmful substances, because they are.
Like I said, I have nothing against paleo, but I do have a big problem with the wild claims and the tautology that can lead to some pretty stupid choices (like eliminating beans when you can just eat and enzyme from Aspergilus niger to go with it). I also reject the idea that everything was hunky-dory and wonderful and healthy in ancestral times. Misery and illness are part of the human condition and it's also really typical for people to imagine its all due to our modern ways, whether because we have offended the gods or because we started eating grains.
i just don't see how you can prove that's true until we settled down into communities and created agriculture. Killed by sabertooth tigers? sure. by misery and illness? I've never seen proof of that.
Here you go. It's the Horus study published recently in the lancet. It shows atherosclerosis in various ancient populations regardless of diet.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60598-X/abstract
Really, why would you assume people didn't have disease back in the day? Maybe because the garden of Eden myth is so strong?
Here is another bit of news, an ice mummy showing the person likely suffered greatly from tooth decay
http://www.livescience.com/28608-otzi-iceman-had-bad-teeth.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Livesciencecom+(LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed)
Animals also have disease. It's a universal condition.
additionally - and this one's great - you didn't even READ your second article. How do I know? This gem:The new findings, published Tuesday (April 9) in the European Journal of Oral Sciences, suggest that the Iceman mummy's grain-heavy diet took a toll on his dental health.
yikes.0 -
The concept is good in as much that consuming whole natural foods in a wide variety, which H-G'ers did based on the fact that gathering food consumed not only calories but time as well, basically that was their job in life and they weren't selective either, they ate anything that was edible and that didn't kill them or make them sick. I've done quite a bit or research on this subject (paleo-anthropology) and looking at the ethnographical atlas and research done by paleoathropopogist, scientists etc as it pertains to modern macro and micronutrient ratios it's pretty plain to see why with the population at 7 billion that the foods today lack much of what made us who we are today. Unfortunately when one of the main scientists that helped gather that information decided to write a diet book and even he couldn't resist telling everyone that diet pop and canola oils were acceptable to consume.....his biases got in the way of the science and it's pretty much gone downhill from the getgo. Now we have many versions of paleo that include anything from diary, some legumes, even some grain.......their all basically a low carb diet in disguise, and to which was not necessarily what H-G'ers conformed to......that's a simplistic utopian view.Relying on thermogenic foods to lose weight or control it is a joke. It's never going to produce results because you gain energy on each transaction and you don't wind up using more energy to digest the less thermogenic foods you eat alongside the thermogenic ones. It's just more pseudoscience that fails to realize metabolism is a set of discreet chemical reactions lumped together for conceptual reasons.
@neanderthin we are now on the same page. The salt, fat, sugar combo is like a drug. I actually feel both salt and refined sugar should be removed from the GRAS list and regulated as potentially harmful substances, because they are.
Like I said, I have nothing against paleo, but I do have a big problem with the wild claims and the tautology that can lead to some pretty stupid choices (like eliminating beans when you can just eat and enzyme from Aspergilus niger to go with it). I also reject the idea that everything was hunky-dory and wonderful and healthy in ancestral times. Misery and illness are part of the human condition and it's also really typical for people to imagine its all due to our modern ways, whether because we have offended the gods or because we started eating grains.0 -
these studies don't go far back enough. agriculture began around 10,000 years ago, and the first study goes back 4,000.Relying on thermogenic foods to lose weight or control it is a joke. It's never going to produce results because you gain energy on each transaction and you don't wind up using more energy to digest the less thermogenic foods you eat alongside the thermogenic ones. It's just more pseudoscience that fails to realize metabolism is a set of discreet chemical reactions lumped together for conceptual reasons.
@neanderthin we are now on the same page. The salt, fat, sugar combo is like a drug. I actually feel both salt and refined sugar should be removed from the GRAS list and regulated as potentially harmful substances, because they are.
Like I said, I have nothing against paleo, but I do have a big problem with the wild claims and the tautology that can lead to some pretty stupid choices (like eliminating beans when you can just eat and enzyme from Aspergilus niger to go with it). I also reject the idea that everything was hunky-dory and wonderful and healthy in ancestral times. Misery and illness are part of the human condition and it's also really typical for people to imagine its all due to our modern ways, whether because we have offended the gods or because we started eating grains.
i just don't see how you can prove that's true until we settled down into communities and created agriculture. Killed by sabertooth tigers? sure. by misery and illness? I've never seen proof of that.
Here you go. It's the Horus study published recently in the lancet. It shows atherosclerosis in various ancient populations regardless of diet.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60598-X/abstract
Really, why would you assume people didn't have disease back in the day? Maybe because the garden of Eden myth is so strong?
Here is another bit of news, an ice mummy showing the person likely suffered greatly from tooth decay
http://www.livescience.com/28608-otzi-iceman-had-bad-teeth.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Livesciencecom+(LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed)
Animals also have disease. It's a universal condition.
additionally - and this one's great - you didn't even READ your second article. How do I know? This gem:The new findings, published Tuesday (April 9) in the European Journal of Oral Sciences, suggest that the Iceman mummy's grain-heavy diet took a toll on his dental health.
yikes.
Lol nope, I read it in German and obviously missed that part about the grains. But are you now saying that paleo keeps you from getting cavities?
In the Horus study, hunter gatherer populations without agriculture are specifically compared to populations with agriculture.
So... If not having agriculture only works 10,000 years ago, what is the point of paleo now?0 -
these studies don't go far back enough. agriculture began around 10,000 years ago, and the first study goes back 4,000.Relying on thermogenic foods to lose weight or control it is a joke. It's never going to produce results because you gain energy on each transaction and you don't wind up using more energy to digest the less thermogenic foods you eat alongside the thermogenic ones. It's just more pseudoscience that fails to realize metabolism is a set of discreet chemical reactions lumped together for conceptual reasons.
@neanderthin we are now on the same page. The salt, fat, sugar combo is like a drug. I actually feel both salt and refined sugar should be removed from the GRAS list and regulated as potentially harmful substances, because they are.
Like I said, I have nothing against paleo, but I do have a big problem with the wild claims and the tautology that can lead to some pretty stupid choices (like eliminating beans when you can just eat and enzyme from Aspergilus niger to go with it). I also reject the idea that everything was hunky-dory and wonderful and healthy in ancestral times. Misery and illness are part of the human condition and it's also really typical for people to imagine its all due to our modern ways, whether because we have offended the gods or because we started eating grains.
i just don't see how you can prove that's true until we settled down into communities and created agriculture. Killed by sabertooth tigers? sure. by misery and illness? I've never seen proof of that.
Here you go. It's the Horus study published recently in the lancet. It shows atherosclerosis in various ancient populations regardless of diet.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60598-X/abstract
Really, why would you assume people didn't have disease back in the day? Maybe because the garden of Eden myth is so strong?
Here is another bit of news, an ice mummy showing the person likely suffered greatly from tooth decay
http://www.livescience.com/28608-otzi-iceman-had-bad-teeth.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Livesciencecom+(LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed)
Animals also have disease. It's a universal condition.
additionally - and this one's great - you didn't even READ your second article. How do I know? This gem:The new findings, published Tuesday (April 9) in the European Journal of Oral Sciences, suggest that the Iceman mummy's grain-heavy diet took a toll on his dental health.
yikes.
Lol nope, I read it in German and obviously missed that part about the grains. But are you now saying that paleo keeps you from getting cavities?
In the Horus study, hunter gatherer populations without agriculture are specifically compared to populations with agriculture.
So... If not having agriculture only works 10,000 years ago, what is the point of paleo now?
1) yes
2) they tested five specimens of ONE hunter gatherer society. that's hardly enough to be conclusive. but nonetheless, it is interesting and thought provoking.
3) your last sentence makes no sense to me. are you suggesting that because we now have agriculture we must be compelled to eat grains? :huh:0 -
Agree with Coach on the teeth........It's pretty well know that dental carriers were a lot healthier before the advent of grain, espeically when grain constituted a big percentage of the diet.
these studies don't go far back enough. agriculture began around 10,000 years ago, and the first study goes back 4,000.Relying on thermogenic foods to lose weight or control it is a joke. It's never going to produce results because you gain energy on each transaction and you don't wind up using more energy to digest the less thermogenic foods you eat alongside the thermogenic ones. It's just more pseudoscience that fails to realize metabolism is a set of discreet chemical reactions lumped together for conceptual reasons.
@neanderthin we are now on the same page. The salt, fat, sugar combo is like a drug. I actually feel both salt and refined sugar should be removed from the GRAS list and regulated as potentially harmful substances, because they are.
Like I said, I have nothing against paleo, but I do have a big problem with the wild claims and the tautology that can lead to some pretty stupid choices (like eliminating beans when you can just eat and enzyme from Aspergilus niger to go with it). I also reject the idea that everything was hunky-dory and wonderful and healthy in ancestral times. Misery and illness are part of the human condition and it's also really typical for people to imagine its all due to our modern ways, whether because we have offended the gods or because we started eating grains.
i just don't see how you can prove that's true until we settled down into communities and created agriculture. Killed by sabertooth tigers? sure. by misery and illness? I've never seen proof of that.
Here you go. It's the Horus study published recently in the lancet. It shows atherosclerosis in various ancient populations regardless of diet.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60598-X/abstract
Really, why would you assume people didn't have disease back in the day? Maybe because the garden of Eden myth is so strong?
Here is another bit of news, an ice mummy showing the person likely suffered greatly from tooth decay
http://www.livescience.com/28608-otzi-iceman-had-bad-teeth.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Livesciencecom+(LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed)
Animals also have disease. It's a universal condition.
additionally - and this one's great - you didn't even READ your second article. How do I know? This gem:The new findings, published Tuesday (April 9) in the European Journal of Oral Sciences, suggest that the Iceman mummy's grain-heavy diet took a toll on his dental health.
yikes.
Lol nope, I read it in German and obviously missed that part about the grains. But are you now saying that paleo keeps you from getting cavities?
In the Horus study, hunter gatherer populations without agriculture are specifically compared to populations with agriculture.
So... If not having agriculture only works 10,000 years ago, what is the point of paleo now?
1) yes
2) they tested five specimens of ONE hunter gatherer society. that's hardly enough to be conclusive. but nonetheless, it is interesting and thought provoking.
3) your last sentence makes no sense to me. are you suggesting that because we now have agriculture we must be compelled to eat grains? :huh:0 -
these studies don't go far back enough. agriculture began around 10,000 years ago, and the first study goes back 4,000.Relying on thermogenic foods to lose weight or control it is a joke. It's never going to produce results because you gain energy on each transaction and you don't wind up using more energy to digest the less thermogenic foods you eat alongside the thermogenic ones. It's just more pseudoscience that fails to realize metabolism is a set of discreet chemical reactions lumped together for conceptual reasons.
@neanderthin we are now on the same page. The salt, fat, sugar combo is like a drug. I actually feel both salt and refined sugar should be removed from the GRAS list and regulated as potentially harmful substances, because they are.
Like I said, I have nothing against paleo, but I do have a big problem with the wild claims and the tautology that can lead to some pretty stupid choices (like eliminating beans when you can just eat and enzyme from Aspergilus niger to go with it). I also reject the idea that everything was hunky-dory and wonderful and healthy in ancestral times. Misery and illness are part of the human condition and it's also really typical for people to imagine its all due to our modern ways, whether because we have offended the gods or because we started eating grains.
i just don't see how you can prove that's true until we settled down into communities and created agriculture. Killed by sabertooth tigers? sure. by misery and illness? I've never seen proof of that.
Here you go. It's the Horus study published recently in the lancet. It shows atherosclerosis in various ancient populations regardless of diet.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60598-X/abstract
Really, why would you assume people didn't have disease back in the day? Maybe because the garden of Eden myth is so strong?
Here is another bit of news, an ice mummy showing the person likely suffered greatly from tooth decay
http://www.livescience.com/28608-otzi-iceman-had-bad-teeth.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Livesciencecom+(LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed)
Animals also have disease. It's a universal condition.
additionally - and this one's great - you didn't even READ your second article. How do I know? This gem:The new findings, published Tuesday (April 9) in the European Journal of Oral Sciences, suggest that the Iceman mummy's grain-heavy diet took a toll on his dental health.
yikes.
Lol nope, I read it in German and obviously missed that part about the grains. But are you now saying that paleo keeps you from getting cavities?
In the Horus study, hunter gatherer populations without agriculture are specifically compared to populations with agriculture.
So... If not having agriculture only works 10,000 years ago, what is the point of paleo now?
1) yes
2) they tested five specimens of ONE hunter gatherer society. that's hardly enough to be conclusive. but nonetheless, it is interesting and thought provoking.
3) your last sentence makes no sense to me. are you suggesting that because we now have agriculture we must be compelled to eat grains? :huh:
1)bull****. Where is there any evidence of that? And why have I never had a cavity despite eating grains most of my life?
2)five subjects, as opposed to no evidence whatsoever now credible which implies clear arteries in any ancestral populations
3)since you claim it's not valid because it is not 10,000 years ago but only 4,000, despite one population being hunter gatherer and more than one not having "modern grains", you are implying the magic stopped working 6,000 years ago
Seriously, it's a fine diet but it isn't magical. And the "ancestral" hypothesis is just plain jumping to conclusions based on false or unsupported assumptions bull****. Previous studies supporting the garden of Eden assumption predicted the Horus study would find no blocked arteries in hunter gatherer populations or those without modern grains. The Horus study effectively negates the assumption. Which you cling to.
Back to you. How much do you eat, and have you transformed yourself from fat to fit by switching to paleo but not reducing intake?0 -
these studies don't go far back enough. agriculture began around 10,000 years ago, and the first study goes back 4,000.Relying on thermogenic foods to lose weight or control it is a joke. It's never going to produce results because you gain energy on each transaction and you don't wind up using more energy to digest the less thermogenic foods you eat alongside the thermogenic ones. It's just more pseudoscience that fails to realize metabolism is a set of discreet chemical reactions lumped together for conceptual reasons.
@neanderthin we are now on the same page. The salt, fat, sugar combo is like a drug. I actually feel both salt and refined sugar should be removed from the GRAS list and regulated as potentially harmful substances, because they are.
Like I said, I have nothing against paleo, but I do have a big problem with the wild claims and the tautology that can lead to some pretty stupid choices (like eliminating beans when you can just eat and enzyme from Aspergilus niger to go with it). I also reject the idea that everything was hunky-dory and wonderful and healthy in ancestral times. Misery and illness are part of the human condition and it's also really typical for people to imagine its all due to our modern ways, whether because we have offended the gods or because we started eating grains.
i just don't see how you can prove that's true until we settled down into communities and created agriculture. Killed by sabertooth tigers? sure. by misery and illness? I've never seen proof of that.
Here you go. It's the Horus study published recently in the lancet. It shows atherosclerosis in various ancient populations regardless of diet.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60598-X/abstract
Really, why would you assume people didn't have disease back in the day? Maybe because the garden of Eden myth is so strong?
Here is another bit of news, an ice mummy showing the person likely suffered greatly from tooth decay
http://www.livescience.com/28608-otzi-iceman-had-bad-teeth.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Livesciencecom+(LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed)
Animals also have disease. It's a universal condition.
additionally - and this one's great - you didn't even READ your second article. How do I know? This gem:The new findings, published Tuesday (April 9) in the European Journal of Oral Sciences, suggest that the Iceman mummy's grain-heavy diet took a toll on his dental health.
yikes.
Lol nope, I read it in German and obviously missed that part about the grains. But are you now saying that paleo keeps you from getting cavities?
In the Horus study, hunter gatherer populations without agriculture are specifically compared to populations with agriculture.
So... If not having agriculture only works 10,000 years ago, what is the point of paleo now?
1) yes
2) they tested five specimens of ONE hunter gatherer society. that's hardly enough to be conclusive. but nonetheless, it is interesting and thought provoking.
3) your last sentence makes no sense to me. are you suggesting that because we now have agriculture we must be compelled to eat grains? :huh:
1)bull****. Where is there any evidence of that? And why have I never had a cavity despite eating grains most of my life?
2)five subjects, as opposed to no evidence whatsoever now credible which implies clear arteries in any ancestral populations
3)since you claim it's not valid because it is not 10,000 years ago but only 4,000, despite one population being hunter gatherer and more than one not having "modern grains", you are implying the magic stopped working 6,000 years ago
Seriously, it's a fine diet but it isn't magical. And the "ancestral" hypothesis is just plain jumping to conclusions based on false or unsupported assumptions bull****. Previous studies supporting the garden of Eden assumption predicted the Horus study would find no blocked arteries in hunter gatherer populations or those without modern grains. The Horus study effectively negates the assumption. Which you cling to.
Back to you. How much do you eat, and have you transformed yourself from fat to fit by switching to paleo but not reducing intake?
you really need to read the studies you shell out to people. 2 of the 5 showed no arterial plaque. they tested 76 egyptians (agricultural), 51 peruvians (agricultural), 5 puebloans (agricultural) and 5 Unangan (hunter gatherers).
That makes it a total of 132 argicultural peoples and 5 hunter gatherers. that screams of a less-than-conclusive study to me.
The problem with statistics is that when you've got a small sample size, ANYTHING is possible. in 5 at bats, a baseball player strikes out all 5. from that we can conclude that he ALWAYS strikes out? Right? Of course not. It's too small of a sample size.
Neither of us know enough about the Unangan people to decipher whether this information means anything at all. We don't know if they traded for grains. We don't know if they didn't. We don't know a damn thing about them! And until you do, using FIVE specimens as if it proves your point is just you being ignorant of how statistics and science works.
Like I said, it's interesting, thought provoking, and suggests further study, but it proves nothing.
and yes, eating fewer grains and refined sugars absolutely prevents tooth decay.
guess you've just been lucky. Remember... sample sizes. 0 -
these studies don't go far back enough. agriculture began around 10,000 years ago, and the first study goes back 4,000.Relying on thermogenic foods to lose weight or control it is a joke. It's never going to produce results because you gain energy on each transaction and you don't wind up using more energy to digest the less thermogenic foods you eat alongside the thermogenic ones. It's just more pseudoscience that fails to realize metabolism is a set of discreet chemical reactions lumped together for conceptual reasons.
@neanderthin we are now on the same page. The salt, fat, sugar combo is like a drug. I actually feel both salt and refined sugar should be removed from the GRAS list and regulated as potentially harmful substances, because they are.
Like I said, I have nothing against paleo, but I do have a big problem with the wild claims and the tautology that can lead to some pretty stupid choices (like eliminating beans when you can just eat and enzyme from Aspergilus niger to go with it). I also reject the idea that everything was hunky-dory and wonderful and healthy in ancestral times. Misery and illness are part of the human condition and it's also really typical for people to imagine its all due to our modern ways, whether because we have offended the gods or because we started eating grains.
i just don't see how you can prove that's true until we settled down into communities and created agriculture. Killed by sabertooth tigers? sure. by misery and illness? I've never seen proof of that.
Here you go. It's the Horus study published recently in the lancet. It shows atherosclerosis in various ancient populations regardless of diet.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60598-X/abstract
Really, why would you assume people didn't have disease back in the day? Maybe because the garden of Eden myth is so strong?
Here is another bit of news, an ice mummy showing the person likely suffered greatly from tooth decay
http://www.livescience.com/28608-otzi-iceman-had-bad-teeth.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Livesciencecom+(LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed)
Animals also have disease. It's a universal condition.
additionally - and this one's great - you didn't even READ your second article. How do I know? This gem:The new findings, published Tuesday (April 9) in the European Journal of Oral Sciences, suggest that the Iceman mummy's grain-heavy diet took a toll on his dental health.
yikes.
Lol nope, I read it in German and obviously missed that part about the grains. But are you now saying that paleo keeps you from getting cavities?
In the Horus study, hunter gatherer populations without agriculture are specifically compared to populations with agriculture.
So... If not having agriculture only works 10,000 years ago, what is the point of paleo now?
1) yes
2) they tested five specimens of ONE hunter gatherer society. that's hardly enough to be conclusive. but nonetheless, it is interesting and thought provoking.
3) your last sentence makes no sense to me. are you suggesting that because we now have agriculture we must be compelled to eat grains? :huh:
1)bull****. Where is there any evidence of that? And why have I never had a cavity despite eating grains most of my life?
2)five subjects, as opposed to no evidence whatsoever now credible which implies clear arteries in any ancestral populations
3)since you claim it's not valid because it is not 10,000 years ago but only 4,000, despite one population being hunter gatherer and more than one not having "modern grains", you are implying the magic stopped working 6,000 years ago
Seriously, it's a fine diet but it isn't magical. And the "ancestral" hypothesis is just plain jumping to conclusions based on false or unsupported assumptions bull****. Previous studies supporting the garden of Eden assumption predicted the Horus study would find no blocked arteries in hunter gatherer populations or those without modern grains. The Horus study effectively negates the assumption. Which you cling to.
Back to you. How much do you eat, and have you transformed yourself from fat to fit by switching to paleo but not reducing intake?
you really need to read the studies you shell out to people. 2 of the 5 showed no arterial plaque. they tested 76 egyptians (agricultural), 51 peruvians (agricultural), 5 puebloans (agricultural) and 5 Unangan (hunter gatherers).
That makes it a total of 132 argicultural peoples and 5 hunter gatherers. that screams of a less-than-conclusive study to me.
The problem with statistics is that when you've got a small sample size, ANYTHING is possible. in 5 at bats, a baseball player strikes out all 5. from that we can conclude that he ALWAYS strikes out? Right? Of course not. It's too small of a sample size.
Neither of us know enough about the Unangan people to decipher whether this information means anything at all. We don't know if they traded for grains. We don't know if they didn't. We don't know a damn thing about them! And until you do, using FIVE specimens as if it proves your point is just you being ignorant of how statistics and science works.
Like I said, it's interesting, thought provoking, and suggests further study, but it proves nothing.
and yes, eating fewer grains and refined sugars absolutely prevents tooth decay. guess you've just been lucky. Remember... sample sizes.
How did you manage to read it? I only saw the excerpt there, but was lucky enough to listen to one of the study authors explain the findings and why they are significant, and why they go against previously accepted notions of how ancestral diets affected health.
Small sample size is an issue, but in this case that's like saying its an unanswerable question, because there are no other samples. I'll gladly accept that there is no actual basis for paleo claims one way or the other, and that paleo proponents should stop making them for lack of evidence suggesting either conclusion. Or are you saying that until it can be proven untrue, we should assume you are right? That sounds a lot like faith to me.
I noticed you skipped answering my question about whether you lost a lot of weight eating paleo without a calorie restriction. Again.0 -
there is plenty of evidence among LIVING hunter/gatherer peoples, who still exist in parts of africa, alaska, canada, australia, indonesia, and on islands all over the world. people who have lower instances of illness and disease, peoples who don't have tooth decay even though they don't have toothbrushes and toothpaste, etc, etc.
these studies don't go far back enough. agriculture began around 10,000 years ago, and the first study goes back 4,000.Relying on thermogenic foods to lose weight or control it is a joke. It's never going to produce results because you gain energy on each transaction and you don't wind up using more energy to digest the less thermogenic foods you eat alongside the thermogenic ones. It's just more pseudoscience that fails to realize metabolism is a set of discreet chemical reactions lumped together for conceptual reasons.
@neanderthin we are now on the same page. The salt, fat, sugar combo is like a drug. I actually feel both salt and refined sugar should be removed from the GRAS list and regulated as potentially harmful substances, because they are.
Like I said, I have nothing against paleo, but I do have a big problem with the wild claims and the tautology that can lead to some pretty stupid choices (like eliminating beans when you can just eat and enzyme from Aspergilus niger to go with it). I also reject the idea that everything was hunky-dory and wonderful and healthy in ancestral times. Misery and illness are part of the human condition and it's also really typical for people to imagine its all due to our modern ways, whether because we have offended the gods or because we started eating grains.
i just don't see how you can prove that's true until we settled down into communities and created agriculture. Killed by sabertooth tigers? sure. by misery and illness? I've never seen proof of that.
Here you go. It's the Horus study published recently in the lancet. It shows atherosclerosis in various ancient populations regardless of diet.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60598-X/abstract
Really, why would you assume people didn't have disease back in the day? Maybe because the garden of Eden myth is so strong?
Here is another bit of news, an ice mummy showing the person likely suffered greatly from tooth decay
http://www.livescience.com/28608-otzi-iceman-had-bad-teeth.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Livesciencecom+(LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed)
Animals also have disease. It's a universal condition.
additionally - and this one's great - you didn't even READ your second article. How do I know? This gem:The new findings, published Tuesday (April 9) in the European Journal of Oral Sciences, suggest that the Iceman mummy's grain-heavy diet took a toll on his dental health.
yikes.
Lol nope, I read it in German and obviously missed that part about the grains. But are you now saying that paleo keeps you from getting cavities?
In the Horus study, hunter gatherer populations without agriculture are specifically compared to populations with agriculture.
So... If not having agriculture only works 10,000 years ago, what is the point of paleo now?
1) yes
2) they tested five specimens of ONE hunter gatherer society. that's hardly enough to be conclusive. but nonetheless, it is interesting and thought provoking.
3) your last sentence makes no sense to me. are you suggesting that because we now have agriculture we must be compelled to eat grains? :huh:
1)bull****. Where is there any evidence of that? And why have I never had a cavity despite eating grains most of my life?
2)five subjects, as opposed to no evidence whatsoever now credible which implies clear arteries in any ancestral populations
3)since you claim it's not valid because it is not 10,000 years ago but only 4,000, despite one population being hunter gatherer and more than one not having "modern grains", you are implying the magic stopped working 6,000 years ago
Seriously, it's a fine diet but it isn't magical. And the "ancestral" hypothesis is just plain jumping to conclusions based on false or unsupported assumptions bull****. Previous studies supporting the garden of Eden assumption predicted the Horus study would find no blocked arteries in hunter gatherer populations or those without modern grains. The Horus study effectively negates the assumption. Which you cling to.
Back to you. How much do you eat, and have you transformed yourself from fat to fit by switching to paleo but not reducing intake?
you really need to read the studies you shell out to people. 2 of the 5 showed no arterial plaque. they tested 76 egyptians (agricultural), 51 peruvians (agricultural), 5 puebloans (agricultural) and 5 Unangan (hunter gatherers).
That makes it a total of 132 argicultural peoples and 5 hunter gatherers. that screams of a less-than-conclusive study to me.
The problem with statistics is that when you've got a small sample size, ANYTHING is possible. in 5 at bats, a baseball player strikes out all 5. from that we can conclude that he ALWAYS strikes out? Right? Of course not. It's too small of a sample size.
Neither of us know enough about the Unangan people to decipher whether this information means anything at all. We don't know if they traded for grains. We don't know if they didn't. We don't know a damn thing about them! And until you do, using FIVE specimens as if it proves your point is just you being ignorant of how statistics and science works.
Like I said, it's interesting, thought provoking, and suggests further study, but it proves nothing.
and yes, eating fewer grains and refined sugars absolutely prevents tooth decay. guess you've just been lucky. Remember... sample sizes.
How did you manage to read it? I only saw the excerpt there, but was lucky enough to listen to one of the study authors explain the findings and why they are significant, and why they go against previously accepted notions of how ancestral diets affected health.
Small sample size is an issue, but in this case that's like saying its an unanswerable question, because there are no other samples. I'll gladly accept that there is no actual basis for paleo claims one way or another, and that paleo proponents should stop making them for lack of evidence suggesting either conclusion.
but besides all that, you're right.0 -
I noticed you skipped answering my question about whether you lost a lot of weight eating paleo without a calorie restriction. Again.
i've never been overweight. I eat as much as I can daily.0 -
there is plenty of evidence among LIVING hunter/gatherer peoples, who still exist in parts of africa, alaska, canada, australia, indonesia, and on islands all over the world. people who have lower instances of illness and disease, peoples who don't have tooth decay even though they don't have toothbrushes and toothpaste, etc, etc.
these studies don't go far back enough. agriculture began around 10,000 years ago, and the first study goes back 4,000.Relying on thermogenic foods to lose weight or control it is a joke. It's never going to produce results because you gain energy on each transaction and you don't wind up using more energy to digest the less thermogenic foods you eat alongside the thermogenic ones. It's just more pseudoscience that fails to realize metabolism is a set of discreet chemical reactions lumped together for conceptual reasons.
@neanderthin we are now on the same page. The salt, fat, sugar combo is like a drug. I actually feel both salt and refined sugar should be removed from the GRAS list and regulated as potentially harmful substances, because they are.
Like I said, I have nothing against paleo, but I do have a big problem with the wild claims and the tautology that can lead to some pretty stupid choices (like eliminating beans when you can just eat and enzyme from Aspergilus niger to go with it). I also reject the idea that everything was hunky-dory and wonderful and healthy in ancestral times. Misery and illness are part of the human condition and it's also really typical for people to imagine its all due to our modern ways, whether because we have offended the gods or because we started eating grains.
i just don't see how you can prove that's true until we settled down into communities and created agriculture. Killed by sabertooth tigers? sure. by misery and illness? I've never seen proof of that.
Here you go. It's the Horus study published recently in the lancet. It shows atherosclerosis in various ancient populations regardless of diet.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60598-X/abstract
Really, why would you assume people didn't have disease back in the day? Maybe because the garden of Eden myth is so strong?
Here is another bit of news, an ice mummy showing the person likely suffered greatly from tooth decay
http://www.livescience.com/28608-otzi-iceman-had-bad-teeth.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Livesciencecom+(LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed)
Animals also have disease. It's a universal condition.
additionally - and this one's great - you didn't even READ your second article. How do I know? This gem:The new findings, published Tuesday (April 9) in the European Journal of Oral Sciences, suggest that the Iceman mummy's grain-heavy diet took a toll on his dental health.
yikes.
Lol nope, I read it in German and obviously missed that part about the grains. But are you now saying that paleo keeps you from getting cavities?
In the Horus study, hunter gatherer populations without agriculture are specifically compared to populations with agriculture.
So... If not having agriculture only works 10,000 years ago, what is the point of paleo now?
1) yes
2) they tested five specimens of ONE hunter gatherer society. that's hardly enough to be conclusive. but nonetheless, it is interesting and thought provoking.
3) your last sentence makes no sense to me. are you suggesting that because we now have agriculture we must be compelled to eat grains? :huh:
1)bull****. Where is there any evidence of that? And why have I never had a cavity despite eating grains most of my life?
2)five subjects, as opposed to no evidence whatsoever now credible which implies clear arteries in any ancestral populations
3)since you claim it's not valid because it is not 10,000 years ago but only 4,000, despite one population being hunter gatherer and more than one not having "modern grains", you are implying the magic stopped working 6,000 years ago
Seriously, it's a fine diet but it isn't magical. And the "ancestral" hypothesis is just plain jumping to conclusions based on false or unsupported assumptions bull****. Previous studies supporting the garden of Eden assumption predicted the Horus study would find no blocked arteries in hunter gatherer populations or those without modern grains. The Horus study effectively negates the assumption. Which you cling to.
Back to you. How much do you eat, and have you transformed yourself from fat to fit by switching to paleo but not reducing intake?
you really need to read the studies you shell out to people. 2 of the 5 showed no arterial plaque. they tested 76 egyptians (agricultural), 51 peruvians (agricultural), 5 puebloans (agricultural) and 5 Unangan (hunter gatherers).
That makes it a total of 132 argicultural peoples and 5 hunter gatherers. that screams of a less-than-conclusive study to me.
The problem with statistics is that when you've got a small sample size, ANYTHING is possible. in 5 at bats, a baseball player strikes out all 5. from that we can conclude that he ALWAYS strikes out? Right? Of course not. It's too small of a sample size.
Neither of us know enough about the Unangan people to decipher whether this information means anything at all. We don't know if they traded for grains. We don't know if they didn't. We don't know a damn thing about them! And until you do, using FIVE specimens as if it proves your point is just you being ignorant of how statistics and science works.
Like I said, it's interesting, thought provoking, and suggests further study, but it proves nothing.
and yes, eating fewer grains and refined sugars absolutely prevents tooth decay. guess you've just been lucky. Remember... sample sizes.
How did you manage to read it? I only saw the excerpt there, but was lucky enough to listen to one of the study authors explain the findings and why they are significant, and why they go against previously accepted notions of how ancestral diets affected health.
Small sample size is an issue, but in this case that's like saying its an unanswerable question, because there are no other samples. I'll gladly accept that there is no actual basis for paleo claims one way or another, and that paleo proponents should stop making them for lack of evidence suggesting either conclusion.
but besides all that, you're right.
Lets see it, then. And answer the question most important to your implied claim about paleo getting you a six pack.0 -
there is plenty of evidence among LIVING hunter/gatherer peoples, who still exist in parts of africa, alaska, canada, australia, indonesia, and on islands all over the world. people who have lower instances of illness and disease, peoples who don't have tooth decay even though they don't have toothbrushes and toothpaste, etc, etc.
these studies don't go far back enough. agriculture began around 10,000 years ago, and the first study goes back 4,000.Relying on thermogenic foods to lose weight or control it is a joke. It's never going to produce results because you gain energy on each transaction and you don't wind up using more energy to digest the less thermogenic foods you eat alongside the thermogenic ones. It's just more pseudoscience that fails to realize metabolism is a set of discreet chemical reactions lumped together for conceptual reasons.
@neanderthin we are now on the same page. The salt, fat, sugar combo is like a drug. I actually feel both salt and refined sugar should be removed from the GRAS list and regulated as potentially harmful substances, because they are.
Like I said, I have nothing against paleo, but I do have a big problem with the wild claims and the tautology that can lead to some pretty stupid choices (like eliminating beans when you can just eat and enzyme from Aspergilus niger to go with it). I also reject the idea that everything was hunky-dory and wonderful and healthy in ancestral times. Misery and illness are part of the human condition and it's also really typical for people to imagine its all due to our modern ways, whether because we have offended the gods or because we started eating grains.
i just don't see how you can prove that's true until we settled down into communities and created agriculture. Killed by sabertooth tigers? sure. by misery and illness? I've never seen proof of that.
Here you go. It's the Horus study published recently in the lancet. It shows atherosclerosis in various ancient populations regardless of diet.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60598-X/abstract
Really, why would you assume people didn't have disease back in the day? Maybe because the garden of Eden myth is so strong?
Here is another bit of news, an ice mummy showing the person likely suffered greatly from tooth decay
http://www.livescience.com/28608-otzi-iceman-had-bad-teeth.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Livesciencecom+(LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed)
Animals also have disease. It's a universal condition.
additionally - and this one's great - you didn't even READ your second article. How do I know? This gem:The new findings, published Tuesday (April 9) in the European Journal of Oral Sciences, suggest that the Iceman mummy's grain-heavy diet took a toll on his dental health.
yikes.
Lol nope, I read it in German and obviously missed that part about the grains. But are you now saying that paleo keeps you from getting cavities?
In the Horus study, hunter gatherer populations without agriculture are specifically compared to populations with agriculture.
So... If not having agriculture only works 10,000 years ago, what is the point of paleo now?
1) yes
2) they tested five specimens of ONE hunter gatherer society. that's hardly enough to be conclusive. but nonetheless, it is interesting and thought provoking.
3) your last sentence makes no sense to me. are you suggesting that because we now have agriculture we must be compelled to eat grains? :huh:
1)bull****. Where is there any evidence of that? And why have I never had a cavity despite eating grains most of my life?
2)five subjects, as opposed to no evidence whatsoever now credible which implies clear arteries in any ancestral populations
3)since you claim it's not valid because it is not 10,000 years ago but only 4,000, despite one population being hunter gatherer and more than one not having "modern grains", you are implying the magic stopped working 6,000 years ago
Seriously, it's a fine diet but it isn't magical. And the "ancestral" hypothesis is just plain jumping to conclusions based on false or unsupported assumptions bull****. Previous studies supporting the garden of Eden assumption predicted the Horus study would find no blocked arteries in hunter gatherer populations or those without modern grains. The Horus study effectively negates the assumption. Which you cling to.
Back to you. How much do you eat, and have you transformed yourself from fat to fit by switching to paleo but not reducing intake?
you really need to read the studies you shell out to people. 2 of the 5 showed no arterial plaque. they tested 76 egyptians (agricultural), 51 peruvians (agricultural), 5 puebloans (agricultural) and 5 Unangan (hunter gatherers).
That makes it a total of 132 argicultural peoples and 5 hunter gatherers. that screams of a less-than-conclusive study to me.
The problem with statistics is that when you've got a small sample size, ANYTHING is possible. in 5 at bats, a baseball player strikes out all 5. from that we can conclude that he ALWAYS strikes out? Right? Of course not. It's too small of a sample size.
Neither of us know enough about the Unangan people to decipher whether this information means anything at all. We don't know if they traded for grains. We don't know if they didn't. We don't know a damn thing about them! And until you do, using FIVE specimens as if it proves your point is just you being ignorant of how statistics and science works.
Like I said, it's interesting, thought provoking, and suggests further study, but it proves nothing.
and yes, eating fewer grains and refined sugars absolutely prevents tooth decay. guess you've just been lucky. Remember... sample sizes.
How did you manage to read it? I only saw the excerpt there, but was lucky enough to listen to one of the study authors explain the findings and why they are significant, and why they go against previously accepted notions of how ancestral diets affected health.
Small sample size is an issue, but in this case that's like saying its an unanswerable question, because there are no other samples. I'll gladly accept that there is no actual basis for paleo claims one way or another, and that paleo proponents should stop making them for lack of evidence suggesting either conclusion.
but besides all that, you're right.
Lets see it, then. And answer the question most important to your implied claim about paleo getting you a six pack.
mmm, ill take tooth decay over 30 year life span. high 5 yall.0 -
1) enough quote boxes dude. haha
2)Incidence of specific diseases. Although hunter-gatherers are not immune to chronic diseases, the available evidence indicates that such diseases are relatively rare in hunter-gatherer groups who follow their traditional lifestyles. However, the incidence of such diseases increases sharply once these societies begin to assimilate Western culture and lifestyle. Comments on specific diseases are as follows.
Cancer. As Eaton et al. [1994, p. 361] note:
Medical anthropologists have found little cancer in their studies of technologically primitive people, and paleopathologists believe that the prevalence of malignancy was low in the past, even when differences in population age structure are taken into account (Rowling, 1961; Hildes and Schaefer, 1984; Micozzi, 1991).
Eaton et al. [1994] also analyzed the factors involved in women's reproductive cancers and developed a model that indicates that up to the age of 60, the risk of breast cancer in Western women is 100 times the risk level for preagricultural (e.g., hunter-gatherer) women.
Cancer in Africa. The famous medical missionary, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, writing in Berglas [1957], reports the following [Berglas 1957, preface]:
On my arrival in Gabon, in 1913, I was astonished to encounter no cases of cancer. I saw none among the natives two hundred miles from the coast.
I can not, of course, say positively there was no cancer at all, but, like other frontier doctors, I can only say that if any cases existed they must have been quite rare.
Williams [1908] reports that cancer is extremely rare among Australian aborigines and in the aboriginal peoples of Africa and also North America. (Note the date of the citation: 1908, a time when there were far more hunter-gatherers than there are today.)
Cancer among the Inuit. Stefansson [1960] describes the search of George B. Leavitt, a physician on a whaling ship, who searched for cancer among the Inuit of Canada and Alaska. It took him 49 years, from 1884 to the first confirmed case in 1933, to find cancer. (Stefansson [1960] describes a possible but unconfirmed case of cancer in 1900, and Eaton et al. [1988] describe cancer in a 500-year-old Inuit mummy.)
Schaefer [1981] reports that breast cancer was virtually unknown among the Inuit in earlier times, but was one of the most common forms of malignancy by 1976.
Cardiovascular disease. Moodie [1981] reports on evidence of hypertension among Australian aborigines, from 1926 to 1975. The data support an association between increasing Westernization and hypertension, but there are some inconsistencies. However, citing additional, more recent data, Moodie reports further evidence of increasing hypertensive disease among Aborigines.
Moodie [1981] also reports that prior to the 1960s, arteriosclerosis and ischemic heart disease were rare among the Australian aborigines.
Schaefer [1981] reports that hypertension and coronary heart disease are extremely rare among the less-acculturated Inuit, but are increasing markedly among the acculturated groups. A 1958 survey of Alaskan natives found no hypertension; however, a 1969 survey found that native Alaskan women showed so-called normal levels of hypertension (i.e, comparable to Western women).
Diabetes. Moodie [1981] reports that diabetes was rare in Aboriginal communities prior to the 1970s; nowadays the prevalence of diabetes is more than 10% in some Aboriginal communities.
Schaefer [1981] reports there are no cases of diabetes among the Inuit who still live the traditional lifestyle. However, cases are now being reported among the acculturated Inuit of the Mackenzie delta area (Canada). Diabetes is also increasing in incidence in the Inuit of Alaska and Greenland.
The above indicate that chronic degenerative diseases are rare when traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyles are followed, but the incidence of disease increases as Westernization occurs. This suggests that at least from the viewpoint of chronic degenerative diseases, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and diet were quite healthy.
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8b.shtml (not a great source itself, but the citations references are all accurate and good)0 -
mmm, ill take tooth decay over 30 year life span. high 5 yall.
i don't think you're fighting sabertooth tigers... right?0 -
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/24/172688806/ancient-chompers-were-healthier-than-oursPrehistoric humans didn't have toothbrushes. They didn't have floss or toothpaste, and they certainly didn't have Listerine. Yet somehow, their mouths were a lot healthier than ours are today.
"Hunter-gatherers had really good teeth," says , director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA. "[But] as soon as you get to farming populations, you see this massive change. Huge amounts of gum disease. And cavities start cropping up."0 -
I noticed you skipped answering my question about whether you lost a lot of weight eating paleo without a calorie restriction. Again.
i've never been overweight. I eat as much as I can daily.
Exactly.0 -
Feel free to wave it in the face of all those people that wonder when you're gonna "quit that crazy diet of yours"
Eat clean, enjoy
*not my infographic, obtained from dietdoctor.
0 -
I noticed you skipped answering my question about whether you lost a lot of weight eating paleo without a calorie restriction. Again.
i've never been overweight. I eat as much as I can daily.
Exactly.
well... only sort of. I don't have a calorie restriction, though I'll admit my case is not typical.
that said, if you're eating a truly paleo diet of meat, veggie, fruit, nuts and seeds, there's almost no physical way to go above your TDEE unless you're eating JUST nuts all day. if you're eating a balanced diet of all these things, it's incredibly hard to go over your maintenance because of the volume of food that would require.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
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions