Have any of you tried the Paleo Diet? Success???
Replies
-
My guess is that you had statistics 101 and that correlation/causation was probably the only thing you remembered. If you dispute what I just said, kindly point me to a study on diet, that, in your opinion does not have the correlation/causation problem, and which ALL independent variables are controlled for (That is the only way to prove causation in the empirical world, and of course that is impossible.)
Keep guessing. I'll let you know when you're getting warmer. Keep on setting up those strawmen and knocking them down, it seems like you have a real gift for it.0 -
I'll take being in this "cult" over being an intolerant, unaware food addict any day...0
-
No, I won't pay for the article...I'm not that invested to be honest. I just hate when people tout medical journal articles as the absolute truth and think there is no error in research. Sure it is probably a lot more solid than people's opinions, but to think that it's completely un biased is a bit foolish.
I mean, if it is true, I'm pretty screwed anyway...I eat this way because they are foods I genuinely like and I don't eat processed stuff or things I don't like but should eat because they are 'healthy'. I guess grass fed meat and lots of veg will kill me in the end! Ah well...I'll be happy.0 -
bah i thought i wanted to get in on this but... nah.
i like being primal. the end
Fortunately, the actual diet/lifestyle is *far* less dramatic than the discussions about it online.
And for whatever reason, it *seems* to have a fairly high adherence rate, at least compared to other dietary approaches. There don't seem to be as many "I tried it once, but couldn't stick with it after X weeks/months" (but this could be influenced by my own bias as my adherence to it has been almost entirely effortless).
so far i'm a good 7 weeks into being low carb, high fat. i sleep like a log, i'm never starving, my skin is glowing! and not only the skin on my face but where there once was cellulite, it is no more. i remember when i weighed less and ate low fat, high carb and even exercised 5 days a week (cardio and strength) and still had to use cream and gels; i couldn't get rid of it! i will give up sandwiches for less dimples any day.0 -
No, I won't pay for the article...I'm not that invested to be honest. I just hate when people tout medical journal articles as the absolute truth and think there is no error in research. Sure it is probably a lot more solid than people's opinions, but to think that it's completely un biased is a bit foolish.
I mean, if it is true, I'm pretty screwed anyway...I eat this way because they are foods I genuinely like and I don't eat processed stuff or things I don't like but should eat because they are 'healthy'. I guess grass fed meat and lots of veg will kill me in the end! Ah well...I'll be happy.
No journal article is the absolute truth. The nature of empirical science is such that truth exists until proven false. The sun rises in the East until it doesn't. However, if you know of a better way to understand how things work, please let me know. Statistically valid studies top anything else I know of.
Yes, your attitude towards diet is pretty typical. Most people cannot be convinced that their lifestyle is hurting them, and even if they are convinced, "magical thinking" allows them to believe that they will live forever anyway. Until they don't. You wouldn't believe the number of cancer patients I have seen who, after being diagnosed, suddenly decide it is time to become vegetarian. Well, sorry. It's too late. You need to get religion before the Judgement Day.
Bytheway, the veggies you eat won't kill you, but I know of no studies that indicate that people who eat grass fed meat live longer than those who eat slaughterhouse meat. Karma's a *****. You kill the cow. The cow kills you.
I also know of no studies that indicate that if you eat only veggies you more likely to get some chronic disease. If anyone knows of such a study, please let me know. And you may be right about the British Heart Association Study I referred to. It may be flawed. Also, the Framingham Study done in the 1940s may be flawed. The Nurses Study. The China Study. The German Study, the studies sponsored by the American Heart Association. All of them, as well as hundreds, if not thousands of others that correlate heart disease and cancer with eating meat may be flawed. But isn't it strange that they all say the same thing: eating meat is correlated with chronic diseases. All these flawed studies say pretty much the same thing. Is that something an intelligent person should ignore? Perhaps they don't. Being vegetarian seems to be correlated with having above average intelligence. (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/vegetarians-are-more-intelligent-says-study-7082629.html - refers to study in the British Medical Journal - sorry to keep mentioning these pseudo scientific journals and flawed studies like this in the British Medical Journal, a clearly pseudo scientific rag.)
Again, sorry to keep bringing in science, when everyone knows that only uninformed opinions count. I am sure we will hear plenty more of those, as well as plenty more comments about "correlation does not equal causation" from all those who got a "C" in statistics 101. I have a Ph.D. friend who teaches graduate statistics at a major university, and she no longer posts here because she is sick of the Correlation-Does-Not-equal-Causation crowd. A certain de minimus level of sophistication is required before one can intelligently talk about any science.
So enjoy your grass fed beef, and I certainly grant your point that all studies are flawed. But you may want to look at them anyway, since I can pretty much guarantee you don't have a better alternative.0 -
bah i thought i wanted to get in on this but... nah.
i like being primal. the end
Fortunately, the actual diet/lifestyle is *far* less dramatic than the discussions about it online.
And for whatever reason, it *seems* to have a fairly high adherence rate, at least compared to other dietary approaches. There don't seem to be as many "I tried it once, but couldn't stick with it after X weeks/months" (but this could be influenced by my own bias as my adherence to it has been almost entirely effortless).
Actually, paleo has the lowest adherence rate of just about any diet.
http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?page=3
It was rated tied for 24th out of 25 diets in terms of health benefits, people who felt the diet actually helped them, etc.
Paleo is a fad diet that is dangerous for your health. I posted an analysis of that earlier. It is a low rated diet in just about every category, and only works by making you sick (ketosis - hyperketonemia.)
Sorry about posting all of these nasty studies. I know people would rather have uninformed opinion, and everyone knows that no study that disagrees with them is valid because correlation does not equal causation.0 -
bah i thought i wanted to get in on this but... nah.
i like being primal. the end
Fortunately, the actual diet/lifestyle is *far* less dramatic than the discussions about it online.
And for whatever reason, it *seems* to have a fairly high adherence rate, at least compared to other dietary approaches. There don't seem to be as many "I tried it once, but couldn't stick with it after X weeks/months" (but this could be influenced by my own bias as my adherence to it has been almost entirely effortless).
Actually, paleo has the lowest adherence rate of just about any diet.
http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?page=3
It was rated tied for 24th out of 25 diets in terms of health benefits, people who felt the diet actually helped them, etc.
Paleo is a fad diet that is dangerous for your health. I posted an analysis of that earlier. It is a low rated diet in just about every category, and only works by making you sick (ketosis - hyperketonemia.)
Sorry about posting all of these nasty studies. I know people would rather have uninformed opinion, and everyone knows that no study that disagrees with them is valid because correlation does not equal causation.
I should also add that the US News and World Report study I cited above gave people the opportunity to say whether or not the diet in question worked for them or did not.
For the Vegetarian Diet, 18,234 people said it worked for them, 3,197 said it did not.
For the Vegan Diet, 16, 054 said it worked for them, 1852 said it did not.
For the Atkins Diet, 4118 said it worked for them, 18,907 said it did not
For the Paleo Diet, 7301 said it worked for them, 24,254 said it did not.
Paleo is just a version of the Atkins diet, and both are ineffective and dangerous.0 -
i had a former trainer who always uses the Paleo diet to drop excessive weight gain. I was looking at some information last night on the web and was thinking of trying this diet. It really appears to be a sensible eating plan minus the dairy and grains.0
-
Again, sorry to keep bringing in science, when everyone knows that only uninformed opinions count.
Then could you please read the following and comment, seeing that you are really good with science
Frassetto LA, Schloetter M, Mietus-Synder M, Morris RC, Jr., Sebastian A: Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet. Eur J Clin Nutr 2009.
Jönsson T, Granfeldt Y, Ahrén B, Branell UC, Pålsson G, Hansson A, Söderström M, Lindeberg S. Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2009;8:35
Jonsson T, Ahren B, Pacini G, Sundler F, Wierup N, Steen S, Sjoberg T, Ugander M, Frostegard J, Goransson Lindeberg S: A Paleolithic diet confers higher insulin sensitivity, lower C-reactive protein and lower blood pressure than a cereal-based diet in domestic pigs. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2006, 3:39.
Jonsson T, Granfeldt Y, Erlanson-Albertsson C, Ahren B, Lindeberg S. A Paleolithic diet is more satiating per calorie than a Mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischemic heart disease. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2010 Nov 30;7(1):85
Lindeberg S, Jonsson T, Granfeldt Y, Borgstrand E, Soffman J, Sjostrom K, Ahren B: A Palaeolithic diet improves glucose tolerance more than a Mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischaemic heart disease. Diabetologia 2007, 50(9):1795-1807.
O’Dea K: Marked improvement in carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in diabetic Australian aborigines after temporary reversion to traditional lifestyle. Diabetes 1984, 33(6):596-603.
Osterdahl M, Kocturk T, Koochek A, Wandell PE: Effects of a short-term intervention with a paleolithic diet in healthy volunteers. Eur J Clin Nutr 2008, 62(5):682-6850 -
Again, sorry to keep bringing in science, when everyone knows that only uninformed opinions count. [/quote]
Then could you please read the following and comment, seeing that you are really good with science
Frassetto LA, Schloetter M, Mietus-Synder M, Morris RC, Jr., Sebastian A: Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet. Eur J Clin Nutr 2009.
Thank you. I really am good at science. Good enough to know that the first study I looked at did not have anything to do with chronic diseases, which is what my studies concerned, and which is what all my posts talked about, and which is one reason the Paleo diet is so dangerous. (There are many more reasons.)
Also, this was a metabolic study of 9 patients (in this case healthy) for less than 20 days. This study proves nothing beyond the 9 patients and the twenty days.
"We performed an outpatient, metabolically controlled study, in nine nonobese sedentary healthy volunteers, ensuring no weight loss by daily weight. We compared the findings when the participants consumed their usual diet with those when they consumed a paleolithic type diet. The participants consumed their usual diet for 3 days, three ramp-up diets of increasing potassium and fiber for 7 days, then a paleolithic type diet comprising lean meat, fruits, vegetables and nuts, and excluding nonpaleolithic type foods, such as cereal grains, dairy or legumes, for 10 days. Outcomes included arterial blood pressure (BP); 24-h urine sodium and potassium excretion; plasma glucose and insulin areas under the curve (AUC) during a 2 h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT); insulin sensitivity; plasma lipid concentrations; and brachial artery reactivity in response to ischemia."
If you want to find out how a general population responds to the Paleo diet, you need to do a longitudinal study of a large cohort for many years.
If the other studies you cite are similar, they are all non sequitur to anything I was talking about, THINK CHRONIC DISEASES.0 -
bah i thought i wanted to get in on this but... nah.
i like being primal. the end
Fortunately, the actual diet/lifestyle is *far* less dramatic than the discussions about it online.
And for whatever reason, it *seems* to have a fairly high adherence rate, at least compared to other dietary approaches. There don't seem to be as many "I tried it once, but couldn't stick with it after X weeks/months" (but this could be influenced by my own bias as my adherence to it has been almost entirely effortless).
Actually, paleo has the lowest adherence rate of just about any diet.
http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?page=3
It was rated tied for 24th out of 25 diets in terms of health benefits, people who felt the diet actually helped them, etc.
Paleo is a fad diet that is dangerous for your health. I posted an analysis of that earlier. It is a low rated diet in just about every category, and only works by making you sick (ketosis - hyperketonemia.)
Sorry about posting all of these nasty studies. I know people would rather have uninformed opinion, and everyone knows that no study that disagrees with them is valid because correlation does not equal causation.
There are some interesting stories about that particular survey, but I'll leave that for others to bring up (as I have all of five minutes before my day gets hectic).
That you (or anyone else) would say that the paleo diet is a fad means one of us misunderstands the diet. That you (or others) equate paleo with "ketosis - hyperketonemia" means one of us misunderstands it too. I eat 100-150g+ of carbs daily. I am nowhere near ketosis. (And even if I was occasionally in ketosis, I guess I am not aware of the significant dangers of that.) I eat real veggies. I eat real fruit. I eat real meat (from animals where I know exactly how they were raised). I do not believe in punishment from karma because I directly killed a cow. Not anymore than it would bite you from the field kills of your choice of food (although I'll admit, I am just speculating as your food diary is locked).
Is my diet statistically more likely to cause problems than a vegan diet? Maybe. But I know that I feel like I have never been more physically and mentally optimal (age-adjusted, of course). Is my diet statistically more likely to cause problems than the SAD? I sincerely doubt it, but again, if it does, then so be it. I feel better. I perform better. I *am* better. And that's enough reason for me to continue it.
[Time's up.]0 -
Paleo is a fad diet that is dangerous for your health. I posted an analysis of that earlier. It is a low rated diet in just about every category, and only works by making you sick (ketosis - hyperketonemia.)
I am intrigued by this statement. My limited understanding is that ketosis is the breaking down of the bodies fat stores so the fat can be used for energy. Surely that would mean any diet or other regime that results in a reduction in body fat, the weight that goes with it and obesity, must include an element of ketosis.
If it is true that being overweight or obese is a health risk and that losing that weight therefore has a benefit it would seem strange to declare the mechanism by which it is achieved as a disease process.0 -
Paleo is NOT Atkins and it's not about ketosis. Paleo diet promotes the eating of carbs from fruit & veg sources (just not from grain sources)0
-
Paleo is a fad diet that is dangerous for your health. I posted an analysis of that earlier. It is a low rated diet in just about every category, and only works by making you sick (ketosis - hyperketonemia.)
I am intrigued by this statement. My limited understanding is that ketosis is the breaking down of the bodies fat stores so the fat can be used for energy. Surely that would mean any diet or other regime that results in a reduction in body fat, the weight that goes with it and obesity, must include an element of ketosis.
If it is true that being overweight or obese is a health risk and that losing that weight therefore has a benefit it would seem strange to declare the mechanism by which it is achieved as a disease process.
Ketosis can have negative side effects:
Skin rash
Headaches
Muscle cramps
Diarrhea
Constipation
Weakness
Insomnia
Amenorrhea
The human body, from Paleolithic times to the present is used to geting 90% of its energy from plant sources, including (and even the Paleos admit this) more than 100 g of fiber per day. Ironically, the Paleos advocate eating what our ancestors ate, and then completely muck it up by throwing in for more meat than man was ever intended to eat, or could eat healthily.
Paleo is a fraud. Sorry, But they say one thing, then do another.
For an admittedly biased review of this and other problems with Paleo see :
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2012nl/jun/paleo2.htm0 -
bah i thought i wanted to get in on this but... nah.
i like being primal. the end
Fortunately, the actual diet/lifestyle is *far* less dramatic than the discussions about it online.
And for whatever reason, it *seems* to have a fairly high adherence rate, at least compared to other dietary approaches. There don't seem to be as many "I tried it once, but couldn't stick with it after X weeks/months" (but this could be influenced by my own bias as my adherence to it has been almost entirely effortless).
Actually, paleo has the lowest adherence rate of just about any diet.
http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?page=3
It was rated tied for 24th out of 25 diets in terms of health benefits, people who felt the diet actually helped them, etc.
Paleo is a fad diet that is dangerous for your health. I posted an analysis of that earlier. It is a low rated diet in just about every category, and only works by making you sick (ketosis - hyperketonemia.)
Sorry about posting all of these nasty studies. I know people would rather have uninformed opinion, and everyone knows that no study that disagrees with them is valid because correlation does not equal causation.
There are some interesting stories about that particular survey, but I'll leave that for others to bring up (as I have all of five minutes before my day gets hectic).
That you (or anyone else) would say that the paleo diet is a fad means one of us misunderstands the diet. That you (or others) equate paleo with "ketosis - hyperketonemia" means one of us misunderstands it too. I eat 100-150g+ of carbs daily. I am nowhere near ketosis. (And even if I was occasionally in ketosis, I guess I am not aware of the significant dangers of that.) I eat real veggies. I eat real fruit. I eat real meat (from animals where I know exactly how they were raised). I do not believe in punishment from karma because I directly killed a cow. Not anymore than it would bite you from the field kills of your choice of food (although I'll admit, I am just speculating as your food diary is locked).
Is my diet statistically more likely to cause problems than a vegan diet? Maybe. But I know that I feel like I have never been more physically and mentally optimal (age-adjusted, of course). Is my diet statistically more likely to cause problems than the SAD? I sincerely doubt it, but again, if it does, then so be it. I feel better. I perform better. I *am* better. And that's enough reason for me to continue it.
[Time's up.]
90% of the caveman diet is leaves, bark, fruit and vegetables. For the past 30,000 years that includes processed (ground up) grains. It also included at least 100 grams of fiber per day as admitted by your leaders.
So what do you eat on a typical day?0 -
If you want to find out how a general population responds to the Paleo diet, you need to do a longitudinal study of a large cohort for many years.
I know you like anthropology, so I invite you to do some research on the Hadza people, who live in Tanzania. One of the last groups of people still doing the hunter gatherer thing. The men hunt for meat, the women gather berries and tubers and their society has no obesity and no heart disease or any disease of any kind. Anthropologist have been studying them for well over 50 years. Their population hovers around 1000 however, not sure if that's a large enough population. In your favor however, when rainy season comes (which lasts about four months if I remember correctly) they switch to an almost completely vegetarian diet.
Here's a good book I highly recommend.
Marlowe, F. W. (2010). The Hadza: Hunter-Gatherers of Tanzania. Berkeley: Univ. California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25342-1.0 -
bah i thought i wanted to get in on this but... nah.
i like being primal. the end
Fortunately, the actual diet/lifestyle is *far* less dramatic than the discussions about it online.
And for whatever reason, it *seems* to have a fairly high adherence rate, at least compared to other dietary approaches. There don't seem to be as many "I tried it once, but couldn't stick with it after X weeks/months" (but this could be influenced by my own bias as my adherence to it has been almost entirely effortless).
Actually, paleo has the lowest adherence rate of just about any diet.
http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?page=3
It was rated tied for 24th out of 25 diets in terms of health benefits, people who felt the diet actually helped them, etc.
Paleo is a fad diet that is dangerous for your health. I posted an analysis of that earlier. It is a low rated diet in just about every category, and only works by making you sick (ketosis - hyperketonemia.)
Sorry about posting all of these nasty studies. I know people would rather have uninformed opinion, and everyone knows that no study that disagrees with them is valid because correlation does not equal causation.
There are some interesting stories about that particular survey, but I'll leave that for others to bring up (as I have all of five minutes before my day gets hectic).
That you (or anyone else) would say that the paleo diet is a fad means one of us misunderstands the diet. That you (or others) equate paleo with "ketosis - hyperketonemia" means one of us misunderstands it too. I eat 100-150g+ of carbs daily. I am nowhere near ketosis. (And even if I was occasionally in ketosis, I guess I am not aware of the significant dangers of that.) I eat real veggies. I eat real fruit. I eat real meat (from animals where I know exactly how they were raised). I do not believe in punishment from karma because I directly killed a cow. Not anymore than it would bite you from the field kills of your choice of food (although I'll admit, I am just speculating as your food diary is locked).
Is my diet statistically more likely to cause problems than a vegan diet? Maybe. But I know that I feel like I have never been more physically and mentally optimal (age-adjusted, of course). Is my diet statistically more likely to cause problems than the SAD? I sincerely doubt it, but again, if it does, then so be it. I feel better. I perform better. I *am* better. And that's enough reason for me to continue it.
[Time's up.]
90% of the caveman diet is leaves, bark, fruit and vegetables. For the past 30,000 years that includes processed (ground up) grains. It also included at least 100 grams of fiber per day as admitted by your leaders.
So what do you eat on a typical day?
I don't think you can blanket statement a "typical" ancestral diet. My understanding is that there was great variance between geographical regions. Further to my understanding, the grains commonly available to us today are nothing like the grains of long ago. (And I know that there is at least a subset of "paleo" that eat "properly-prepared" (fermented, sprouted, etc.) grains. I do not, simply because I do not believe these grains offer a substantial health benefit to justify the ordeal, and certain evidence leads me to believe they may be potentially harmful.
I have no leaders for my dietary choices. If anything, I am my own leader. That said, I have never read anyone recommending 100g of daily fiber. (I'm not saying they aren't out there, just that I haven't seen it.) However, I do recall reading several prominent "paleo" writers that said that fiber was not the wonder it had been made out to be and was not necessary in large quantities to "keep things moving" for a normal "paleo" diet. For what it's worth, I am pleased with the evidence I have of my digestive health (and even very recently confirmed by some routine testing). (Looking at my diary, it looks like I average about 30g daily. My macros also tend to be 20/20/60 P/C/F, not by design, but happenstance.)
Unlike many others on the site (for their own various personal reasons, I'm sure), my food diary is wide open for everyone to see.
ETA: What do *you* eat on a typical day?0 -
If you want to find out how a general population responds to the Paleo diet, you need to do a longitudinal study of a large cohort for many years.
I know you like anthropology, so I invite you to do some research on the Hadza people, who live in Tanzania. One of the last groups of people still doing the hunter gatherer thing. The men hunt for meat, the women gather berries and tubers and their society has no obesity and no heart disease or any disease of any kind. Anthropologist have been studying them for well over 50 years. Their population hovers around 1000 however, not sure if that's a large enough population. In your favor however, when rainy season comes (which lasts about four months if I remember correctly) they switch to an almost completely vegetarian diet.
Here's a good book I highly recommend.
Marlowe, F. W. (2010). The Hadza: Hunter-Gatherers of Tanzania. Berkeley: Univ. California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25342-1.
Thank you, I usually do well reading books others recommend. At the moment I am reading one (COMPLEXITY M. Mitchell Waldorp.) I just looked through the indices of a couple of anthro books in my library, and found nothing about the Hadza, although I remember hearing that name. How far does their diet go back?
You might be interested in this Science article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20019285
There is evidence this ground seed diet goes back 100,000 years.0 -
bah i thought i wanted to get in on this but... nah.
i like being primal. the end
Fortunately, the actual diet/lifestyle is *far* less dramatic than the discussions about it online.
And for whatever reason, it *seems* to have a fairly high adherence rate, at least compared to other dietary approaches. There don't seem to be as many "I tried it once, but couldn't stick with it after X weeks/months" (but this could be influenced by my own bias as my adherence to it has been almost entirely effortless).
Actually, paleo has the lowest adherence rate of just about any diet.
http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?page=3
It was rated tied for 24th out of 25 diets in terms of health benefits, people who felt the diet actually helped them, etc.
Paleo is a fad diet that is dangerous for your health. I posted an analysis of that earlier. It is a low rated diet in just about every category, and only works by making you sick (ketosis - hyperketonemia.)
Sorry about posting all of these nasty studies. I know people would rather have uninformed opinion, and everyone knows that no study that disagrees with them is valid because correlation does not equal causation.
There are some interesting stories about that particular survey, but I'll leave that for others to bring up (as I have all of five minutes before my day gets hectic).
That you (or anyone else) would say that the paleo diet is a fad means one of us misunderstands the diet. That you (or others) equate paleo with "ketosis - hyperketonemia" means one of us misunderstands it too. I eat 100-150g+ of carbs daily. I am nowhere near ketosis. (And even if I was occasionally in ketosis, I guess I am not aware of the significant dangers of that.) I eat real veggies. I eat real fruit. I eat real meat (from animals where I know exactly how they were raised). I do not believe in punishment from karma because I directly killed a cow. Not anymore than it would bite you from the field kills of your choice of food (although I'll admit, I am just speculating as your food diary is locked).
Is my diet statistically more likely to cause problems than a vegan diet? Maybe. But I know that I feel like I have never been more physically and mentally optimal (age-adjusted, of course). Is my diet statistically more likely to cause problems than the SAD? I sincerely doubt it, but again, if it does, then so be it. I feel better. I perform better. I *am* better. And that's enough reason for me to continue it.
[Time's up.]
90% of the caveman diet is leaves, bark, fruit and vegetables. For the past 30,000 years that includes processed (ground up) grains. It also included at least 100 grams of fiber per day as admitted by your leaders.
So what do you eat on a typical day?
I don't think you can blanket statement a "typical" ancestral diet.
Of course you can't. I realize that, but doesn't that belie the whole Paleo movement? It is supposed to be based on THE caveman diet.
My understanding is that there was great variance between geographical regions. Further to my understanding, the grains commonly available to us today are nothing like the grains of long ago. (And I know that there is at least a subset of "paleo" that eat "properly-prepared" (fermented, sprouted, etc.) grains. I do not, simply because I do not believe these grains offer a substantial health benefit to justify the ordeal, and certain evidence leads me to believe they may be potentially harmful.
Grains allowed civilization to be founded. I will take civilization with grains rather than no civilization without grains.
I have no leaders for my dietary choices. If anything, I am my own leader. That said, I have never read anyone recommending 100g of daily fiber.
****************************************************************************************************************************************
"QuestionsTagsUsersBadgesUnansweredAsk Question
Paleolithic Fiber Consumption
8
Dr. Robert Lustig ("Sugar the Bitter Truth" -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM ) was on the Livin'La Vida Lo-Carb show a few days ago and he stated there has been analysis on 50,000 year old human fecal matter that shows hunter gathers consumed 100 to 300 grams of fiber per day. He said it twice and I had to rewind it twice to make sure I heard it correctly. Before grains and beans is that even possible? If possible what would you have to consume to hit 200 grams per day? Dr. Lustig is a pretty smart guy but unless I'm missing something, that seems pretty wacky. Does anybody know what study he is referring to?
For more Paleo Diet hacks: Paleolithic Fiber Consumption - PaleoHacks.com http://paleohacks.com/questions/6941/paleolithic-fiber-consumption#ixzz2398ZtYeb
**************************************************************************************************************************************
(I'm not saying they aren't out there, just that I haven't seen it.) However, I do recall reading several prominent "paleo" writers that said that fiber was not the wonder it had been made out to be and was not necessary in large quantities to "keep things moving" for a normal "paleo" diet.
Fiber is the most important link to a long life span:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-women-should-eat-to-live-longer/
This is the so called "Harvard Nurses Study," and it deals with women, so naturally one could logically say the results do not apply to men. However, it is likely they do.
For what it's worth, I am pleased with the evidence I have of my digestive health (and even very recently confirmed by some routine testing). (Looking at my diary, it looks like I average about 30g daily. My macros also tend to be 20/20/60 P/C/F, not by design, but happenstance.)
Okay, if you sniffed coke (so I am told) you would likely feel some pleasure. Does that mean it is a good thing to do? Maybe you are right and maybe the Paleo diet is helping you a lot, or maybe you are like other humans, and it will ultimately just kill you.
Unlike many others on the site (for their own various personal reasons, I'm sure), my food diary is wide open for everyone to see.
ETA: What do *you* eat on a typical day?
I don't post my food intake, because I am not dieting. Although I could probably stand to lose a few pounds. I am actually trying to increase my muscle mass, hence my weight.
Now for something to completely depress you meat eaters and Paleos. Read it and weap:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/08/27/vegetarian-diet-scientist_n_1834182.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false0 -
I don't post my food intake, because I am not dieting. Although I could probably stand to lose a few pounds. I am actually trying to increase my muscle mass, hence my weight.
Interesting. Me too. So far this year, have added 15 mostly lean pounds. (I say "mostly lean" because while my waistline and the calipers haven't changed in any noticeable way, I sincerely doubt that all 15 pounds are muscle.)
But I don't understand why you wouldn't share your food log for that reason. I eat (mostly) the same foods now that I did when I was dropping the squishier look last year, just more of them. Even if I were eating drastically different foods, I see no reason to hide my food log from others.0 -
Thank you, I usually do well reading books others recommend. At the moment I am reading one (COMPLEXITY M. Mitchell Waldorp.) I just looked through the indices of a couple of anthro books in my library, and found nothing about the Hadza, although I remember hearing that name. How far does their diet go back?
You might be interested in this Science article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20019285
There is evidence this ground seed diet goes back 100,000 years.
Truthfully, we don't know because they don't use writing and all their history is oral, however in the book there is archaeological evidence that they have lived in that part of Africa for 50,000 years. They still use clicks and grunts in their language and it is unlike any others. Genetically they have no relatives in the world either. Up until their "discovery" a couple hundred years ago they've been living in isolation for thousands of years.
I'll have to take a look at that study, thank you for sharing!0 -
[/quote]I did make the mistake of commenting on that post and others titled "Paleo or Vegan" or something similar.
***************************
The title of the string was, "Considering being a vegan?" Nothing ambiguous about it, and you invited yourself right in, which by the way was fine with me, since I am not afraid of people disagreeing with me. And there were many other Paleos who invited themselves there. Again no problem. Vegans are not sensitive to criticism like Paleos. That is because our philosophy is not based on myths and phony anthropology.
***************************
I am avoiding them now. I have no problems with difference of opinion, but I cannot stand opinions touted as FACT and disrespecting others.
***************************
Gee. We cite journals like Nature and Science and we have OPINIONS. You give anecdotal stories about your family and you have FACT. Like I said, Paleos have an interesting view of fact and fiction.
***************************
There is nothing in my post that is disrespectful or attacking vegans. I am merely presenting a view that may have never been considered. I challenge myself, and my beliefs, all the time as well.
***************************
When we give study after study showing a definitive relationship between eating meat and chronic diseases, when we quote top academic journals supporting our position, and when we quote and refer to REAL anthropological studies as opposed to anthropological pop opinion, it is disrespectful to say we are giving opinion and you are giving fact. Indeed it is just the opposite.
***************************
I am not against vegans, but no, I do not understand the "ethical" choice for it and I've commented why before.
**************************
Are you actually saying that ethical choices are hard for you to understand?
**************************
The comments from Vegasaurus will no longer get reasonable, logical comments from me, but I should be able to share my opinions on posts that are applicable to me. Such as this one.
**************************
My comments have NEVER gotten reasonable comments from you. You give only storys about your family and friends. Obviously you do not understand that anecdotal information has no place in science.
**************************
You are nothing but an online bully. Your "facts" are the only allowable opinions. You ridicule others (ie "ethical choices are hard for you to understand"). This post asked for opinions from people who have tried the Paleo Diet. You are insulting and rude and have apparently never tried this way of eating. Get lost and stick to what you know-VEGAN posts. (like deserves like)
I like how you deleted some of my words in what was quoted; very classy. NOT.
Edit: this forum is about PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, few of us are scientists, even if some of us pretend to be. I will share what I want, especially on posts that apply to ME. You have gone beyond what is a discussion. All your opinions are "scientific" and anyone who disagrees is "anecdotal". Part of "science" is observation, or did you miss that part? I could post links to studies after studies too, but what is the point when dealing with people like you; I've seen you belittle every logical argument put your way by many people, and not with science. You have one way, your cup is full and it's pointless to argue with you.
(Guess what? I've actually been vegan, so yes, I can comment on how it was for me, even though I am choosing not to do so since mid August, and won't again because of nasty "people" like you.)0 -
I don't post my food intake, because I am not dieting. Although I could probably stand to lose a few pounds. I am actually trying to increase my muscle mass, hence my weight.
Interesting. Me too. So far this year, have added 15 mostly lean pounds. (I say "mostly lean" because while my waistline and the calipers haven't changed in any noticeable way, I sincerely doubt that all 15 pounds are muscle.)
But I don't understand why you wouldn't share your food log for that reason. I eat (mostly) the same foods now that I did when I was dropping the squishier look last year, just more of them. Even if I were eating drastically different foods, I see no reason to hide my food log from others.
I am not hiding it. I just don't do it. What is the point of logging food just for the sake of logging food? I can understand if you are counting calories, or worried about fiber or something, but I'm not, and I don't. I think it would be a waste of time.0 -
Thank you, I usually do well reading books others recommend. At the moment I am reading one (COMPLEXITY M. Mitchell Waldorp.) I just looked through the indices of a couple of anthro books in my library, and found nothing about the Hadza, although I remember hearing that name. How far does their diet go back?
You might be interested in this Science article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20019285
There is evidence this ground seed diet goes back 100,000 years.
Truthfully, we don't know because they don't use writing and all their history is oral, however in the book there is archaeological evidence that they have lived in that part of Africa for 50,000 years. They still use clicks and grunts in their language and it is unlike any others. Genetically they have no relatives in the world either. Up until their "discovery" a couple hundred years ago they've been living in isolation for thousands of years.
I'll have to take a look at that study, thank you for sharing!
Thank you. And I'll put that book on my to-do list.0 -
I did make the mistake of commenting on that post and others titled "Paleo or Vegan" or something similar.
***************************
The title of the string was, "Considering being a vegan?" Nothing ambiguous about it, and you invited yourself right in, which by the way was fine with me, since I am not afraid of people disagreeing with me. And there were many other Paleos who invited themselves there. Again no problem. Vegans are not sensitive to criticism like Paleos. That is because our philosophy is not based on myths and phony anthropology.
***************************
I am avoiding them now. I have no problems with difference of opinion, but I cannot stand opinions touted as FACT and disrespecting others.
***************************
Gee. We cite journals like Nature and Science and we have OPINIONS. You give anecdotal stories about your family and you have FACT. Like I said, Paleos have an interesting view of fact and fiction.
***************************
There is nothing in my post that is disrespectful or attacking vegans. I am merely presenting a view that may have never been considered. I challenge myself, and my beliefs, all the time as well.
***************************
When we give study after study showing a definitive relationship between eating meat and chronic diseases, when we quote top academic journals supporting our position, and when we quote and refer to REAL anthropological studies as opposed to anthropological pop opinion, it is disrespectful to say we are giving opinion and you are giving fact. Indeed it is just the opposite.
***************************
I am not against vegans, but no, I do not understand the "ethical" choice for it and I've commented why before.
**************************
Are you actually saying that ethical choices are hard for you to understand?
**************************
The comments from Vegasaurus will no longer get reasonable, logical comments from me, but I should be able to share my opinions on posts that are applicable to me. Such as this one.
**************************
My comments have NEVER gotten reasonable comments from you. You give only storys about your family and friends. Obviously you do not understand that anecdotal information has no place in science.
**************************
You are nothing but an online bully. Your "facts" are the only allowable opinions. You ridicule others (ie "ethical choices are hard for you to understand"). This post asked for opinions from people who have tried the Paleo Diet. You are insulting and rude and have apparently never tried this way of eating. Get lost and stick to what you know-VEGAN posts. (like deserves like)
I like how you deleted some of my words in what was quoted; very classy. NOT.
Edit: this forum is about PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, few of us are scientists, even if some of us pretend to be. I will share what I want, especially on posts that apply to ME. You have gone beyond what is a discussion. All your opinions are "scientific" and anyone who disagrees is "anecdotal". Part of "science" is observation, or did you miss that part? I could post links to studies after studies too, but what is the point when dealing with people like you; I've seen you belittle every logical argument put your way by many people, and not with science. You have one way, your cup is full and it's pointless to argue with you.
(Guess what? I've actually been vegan, so yes, I can comment on how it was for me, even though I am choosing not to do so since mid August, and won't again because of nasty "people" like you.)
[/quote]
**************************************************************************************
**************************************************************************************
My, my, aren't we in foul mood!
You can post whatever you like, but if people aren't interested in talking about it, it dies.
And I maintain that what I post is on topic. I talk about the Paleo Diet. Extensively. I gave for example statistics showing that less than one third of people who tried it thought it helped them, while almost all of those who tried vegetarian and vegan diets thought they were helped. I talk about the Paleo philosophy, and what is the Paleo diet. I talk about eating 100 g of fiber per day, and even post remarks from Paleo websites. I also post opinions from other diet experts like Dr MacDougal who gives his opinion on Paleo. And yes, I post studies on the relationship between eating meat and chronic diseases.
You seem to be the only person who thinks this is off topic or who seems offended. And very clearly you are trying to control the conversation. Well, say what you want. I am not trying to stop you. Please don't try and stop me from disagreeing with you.
And lastly, I really do not understand the hostility to scientific studies that I see from a lot of people, especially you. You don't need to be a scientist to understand the results of a study. To make it easy, I frequently post newspaper coverage of the study so you don't have to wade through the mumbo jumbo of scientific lingo. Of course the newspaper coverage almost always gives a link to the actual study, or if it doesn't, Googling the study from the article is never much of a challenge,
My final suggestion is that if you want to restrict who can post and what opinions they can have, start a private forum where you, personally, can censor posts and ban evil posters like me from even being there. MFP gives you that option, you know.0 -
I love when you come to these types of threads, never really take what others are saying into consideration and fully discount anything but vegetariansim or veganism as being a fad or not nutritionally sound. I've seen your name pop up in many of these types of discussions and it's always the same.
Never mind that you cannot at all prove the statement "I gave for example statistics showing that less than one third of people who tried it thought it helped them, while almost all of those who tried vegetarian and vegan diets thought they were helped" and anything that anyone else says that is a counter to that must be wrong. Personal observations mean nothing to you unless they are your own.
I'll stick to observation to show improvement. I'll keep in mind the fact that my sister was a vegetarian and then vegan for the better part of 15 years and just got FAT, sick and depressed, her boyfriend who's been vegan almost his entire life has tons of health issues stemming back to poor development of his body. Only now after going Paleo has my sister been able to get her weight, health and mind back into shape. Never mind the scores of friends and coworkers that are doing it now and feel great....doesn't mean a whole lot because everyone must be wrong.0 -
I love when you come to these types of threads, never really take what others are saying into consideration and fully discount anything but vegetariansim or veganism as being a fad or not nutritionally sound. I've seen your name pop up in many of these types of discussions and it's always the same.
Never mind that you cannot at all prove the statement "I gave for example statistics showing that less than one third of people who tried it thought it helped them, while almost all of those who tried vegetarian and vegan diets thought they were helped" and anything that anyone else says that is a counter to that must be wrong. Personal observations mean nothing to you unless they are your own.
I'll stick to observation to show improvement. I'll keep in mind the fact that my sister was a vegetarian and then vegan for the better part of 15 years and just got FAT, sick and depressed, her boyfriend who's been vegan almost his entire life has tons of health issues stemming back to poor development of his body. Only now after going Paleo has my sister been able to get her weight, health and mind back into shape. Never mind the scores of friends and coworkers that are doing it now and feel great....doesn't mean a whole lot because everyone must be wrong.
I feel very happy for your family, but they are your family. I and people who are of a scientific bent prefer studies to anecdotal information. However, I have never stopped you or anyone else from saying what you want on this or any other board. Sorry, but go ahead and talk about your family if you want to. If others are interested, they can join in. If you make some kind of statement about "What is true for my family is true for everyone," then I will jump in and disagree. Studies show what they show, and anecdotal information shows what it shows.0 -
I love when you come to these types of threads, never really take what others are saying into consideration and fully discount anything but vegetariansim or veganism as being a fad or not nutritionally sound. I've seen your name pop up in many of these types of discussions and it's always the same.
Never mind that you cannot at all prove the statement "I gave for example statistics showing that less than one third of people who tried it thought it helped them, while almost all of those who tried vegetarian and vegan diets thought they were helped" and anything that anyone else says that is a counter to that must be wrong. Personal observations mean nothing to you unless they are your own.
I'll stick to observation to show improvement. I'll keep in mind the fact that my sister was a vegetarian and then vegan for the better part of 15 years and just got FAT, sick and depressed, her boyfriend who's been vegan almost his entire life has tons of health issues stemming back to poor development of his body. Only now after going Paleo has my sister been able to get her weight, health and mind back into shape. Never mind the scores of friends and coworkers that are doing it now and feel great....doesn't mean a whole lot because everyone must be wrong.
I feel very happy for your family, but they are your family. I and people who are of a scientific bent prefer studies to anecdotal information. However, I have never stopped you or anyone else from saying what you want on this or any other board. Sorry, but go ahead and talk about your family if you want to. If others are interested, they can join in. If you make some kind of statement about "What is true for my family is true for everyone," then I will jump in and disagree. Studies show what they show, and anecdotal information shows what it shows.
Yet, any study can be manipulated and bent in any way that researcher wants. That has become evident in recent years with many scandals in the scientific community in which "scientists" have been caught or admit to either fabricating or discarding data that did not agree with a conclusion that they'd already decided on well before starting their "research".
You also have to take into consideration the outside influence that appears to be driving the "scientific" community more and more. Research funded by corporations with vested interest in a specific outcome, governments that want a specific outcome. There are many political influences as well that skew the data and the resutls such that I am of the opinion that there is in fact very little or no real science being performed anymore.
For anyone calling themselves a scientist as well, it's irresponsible to make conclusions that are presented as irrefutable fact. The goal of science should always to be to question and analyze, even one's own conculsions.0 -
Yet, any study can be manipulated and bent in any way that researcher wants. That has become evident in recent years with many scandals in the scientific community in which "scientists" have been caught or admit to either fabricating or discarding data that did not agree with a conclusion that they'd already decided on well before starting their "research".
*******************************************
The correlation between meat and chronic diseases was first shown in the Framingham Study, a study done in the 1940s. Virtually every study done since then has come to the same conclusion. Every responsible health organization in the world recommends drastically cutting meat. If the ones who have done this are pseudo scientists, they have been around doing their dirty deed since the 1940's and have fooled just about every scientist on the planet.
*******************************************************
You also have to take into consideration the outside influence that appears to be driving the "scientific" community more and more. Research funded by corporations with vested interest in a specific outcome, governments that want a specific outcome. There are many political influences as well that skew the data and the resutls such that I am of the opinion that there is in fact very little or no real science being performed anymore.
*********************************************************
Yup. And that is exactly why I don't consider any study funded by any meat or dairy organization. (Bytheway, neither PETA, nor any other vegetarian organization I know of has ever funded a study. They don't have to.
*********************************************************
For anyone calling themselves a scientist as well, it's irresponsible to make conclusions that are presented as irrefutable fact. The goal of science should always to be to question and analyze, even one's own conculsions.
*********************************************************
Whoa! I never said I was a scientist. It is true that 95% of the people I work with are scientists but I am not. I do have a very strong scientific background, however, which is why I can work with them so easily.
And kindly show me where I ever said that any study was "irrefutable fact." Studies result in facts, e.g., "People who eat meat regularly are 20% more likely to die of a heart attack than non meat eaters according to such and such a study." But these are hardly irrefutable.0 -
Yet, any study can be manipulated and bent in any way that researcher wants. That has become evident in recent years with many scandals in the scientific community in which "scientists" have been caught or admit to either fabricating or discarding data that did not agree with a conclusion that they'd already decided on well before starting their "research".
*******************************************
The correlation between meat and chronic diseases was first shown in the Framingham Study, a study done in the 1940s. Virtually every study done since then has come to the same conclusion. Every responsible health organization in the world recommends drastically cutting meat. If the ones who have done this are pseudo scientists, they have been around doing their dirty deed since the 1940's and have fooled just about every scientist on the planet.
*******************************************************
You also have to take into consideration the outside influence that appears to be driving the "scientific" community more and more. Research funded by corporations with vested interest in a specific outcome, governments that want a specific outcome. There are many political influences as well that skew the data and the resutls such that I am of the opinion that there is in fact very little or no real science being performed anymore.
*********************************************************
Yup. And that is exactly why I don't consider any study funded by any meat or dairy organization. (Bytheway, neither PETA, nor any other vegetarian organization I know of has ever funded a study. They don't have to.
*********************************************************
For anyone calling themselves a scientist as well, it's irresponsible to make conclusions that are presented as irrefutable fact. The goal of science should always to be to question and analyze, even one's own conculsions.
*********************************************************
Whoa! I never said I was a scientist. It is true that 95% of the people I work with are scientists but I am not. I do have a very strong scientific background, however, which is why I can work with them so easily.
And kindly show me where I ever said that any study was "irrefutable fact." Studies result in facts, e.g., "People who eat meat regularly are 20% more likely to die of a heart attack than non meat eaters according to such and such a study." But these are hardly irrefutable.
I never specifically pointed you out as a scientist. What I'm saying is that these days you can't really trust scientists to be delivering the actual data that they've gathered, but rather a stilted, skewed view that is made to fit into specific outcome that has already been pre-defined. Most of the bad science against meat in the diet can be traced back to the Lipid Hypothesis and Ancel Keys, who was a grade A *kitten* and a fraud.
I don't need some study to show me that meat is or is not good, I know that I feel better and perform better when I eat meat. I know also that I fell much better when I eat a wide array of vegtables that are free from processing and are fresh. I don't care for any views from large organizations like PETA or the like, as they are also corrupt and have become politically motivated now.
In the end isn't all science rooted in observation and experimentation? To just blindly say that observation to the contrary of popular belief is not valid is a fundamental and fatal flaw in your argument in my opinion.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