Health food not so healthy???
Replies
-
Did cavemen drink Shakeology?
Some of them would have if he had an extra $120 a month to spend on that stuff.0 -
Did cavemen drink Shakeology?
doubt it.
once we master time travel, they will have drunk it.0 -
What? Anthro degree here. We didn't evolve to eat a particular way--we are generalists specifically so we can adapt to any environment we wander into. That's why we have incisors for cutting meat and molars for grinding grain. And big brains so we can figure out how to extract nutrition from just about anything we find.eating the way we evolved to eat is orthorexic??
I like you.0 -
FYI: The Whole Foods' 365 brand almond milk is free of carrageenan.
I asked before and still haven't got a response. What is wrong with carrageenan?0 -
at this point i feel like every food is going to get a bad rep at some point or another- yesterday it was fat, today its gluten... "omg i ate 5000 cookies and got fat, i better exclude all wheat from my diet including whole grains because they are obviously detrimental"... i pretty much just avoid anything that has sketch man-made additives or trans fat.0
-
FYI: The Whole Foods' 365 brand almond milk is free of carrageenan.
I asked before and still haven't got a response. What is wrong with carrageenan?
Everything and Nothing. Depends who you ask.0 -
I'm sensing a Dr. Oz moment here.0
-
Oh and protein bars. Many have as much sugar as a candy bar.
so much this.
That banana you ate? Has as much sugar as a Snickers
A LARGE banana has about 16 grams of sugar, while a Snickers bar has 30 grams of sugar.0 -
LOL no. Drinking snake blood in Hong Kong. Delicious and nutritious :laugh:Good article about almond milk.
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/coconut-and-almond-milk-in-cartons-not-a-healthy-buy/Almond Milk:(
Grains/legumes/dairy
Why is almond milk "bad"?
j75j75 is that almond milk in the bong your hitting?0 -
I like how the Coach chap has ignored the college-educated Anthropologist0
-
Cliff bars.....
0 -
I like how the Coach chap has ignored the college-educated Anthropologist
oh, i just made the same argument i would've made in response to someone else... i'll be happy to make it again though.0 -
I like how the Coach chap has ignored the college-educated Anthropologist
oh, i just made the same argument i would've made in response to someone else... i'll be happy to make it again though.
I'm trying to stoke the fire to see you both have at it with your verbal rapiers. Just seemed to jump at me that you hadn't even acknowledged her.0 -
What? Anthro degree here. We didn't evolve to eat a particular way--we are generalists specifically so we can adapt to any environment we wander into. That's why we have incisors for cutting meat and molars for grinding grain. And big brains so we can figure out how to extract nutrition from just about anything we find.eating the way we evolved to eat is orthorexic??
Have you ever tried to "grind" a raw wheat grain in your teeth? It doesn't work all that well. Those things are hard. There's a reason people used stones to grind them up back in the day. Our molars are for grinding fruits and vegetables, much the way cows chew grass, etc.
Also, what drives evolution but our environment? Food is part of our environment and yes, we absolutely evolve according to the types of foods exist in our environment. Paleo man never ate grains, so how does it make evolutionary sense that their organs would be designed to digest something neither he nor his ancestors EVER ate?0 -
What? Anthro degree here. We didn't evolve to eat a particular way--we are generalists specifically so we can adapt to any environment we wander into. That's why we have incisors for cutting meat and molars for grinding grain. And big brains so we can figure out how to extract nutrition from just about anything we find.eating the way we evolved to eat is orthorexic??
Have you ever tried to "grind" a raw wheat grain in your teeth? It doesn't work all that well. Those things are hard. There's a reason people used stones to grind them up back in the day. Our molars are for grinding fruits and vegetables, much the way cows chew grass, etc.
Also, what drives evolution but our environment? Food is part of our environment and yes, we absolutely evolve according to the types of foods exist in our environment. Paleo man never ate grains, so how does it make evolutionary sense that their organs would be designed to digest something neither he nor his ancestors EVER ate?
I am now satisfied that this grave oversight has been corrected.
*crawls back into hole*0 -
What? Anthro degree here. We didn't evolve to eat a particular way--we are generalists specifically so we can adapt to any environment we wander into. That's why we have incisors for cutting meat and molars for grinding grain. And big brains so we can figure out how to extract nutrition from just about anything we find.eating the way we evolved to eat is orthorexic??
Have you ever tried to "grind" a raw wheat grain in your teeth? It doesn't work all that well. Those things are hard. There's a reason people used stones to grind them up back in the day. Our molars are for grinding fruits and vegetables, much the way cows chew grass, etc.
Also, what drives evolution but our environment? Food is part of our environment and yes, we absolutely evolve according to the types of foods exist in our environment. Paleo man never ate grains, so how does it make evolutionary sense that their organs would be designed to digest something neither he nor his ancestors EVER ate?
I am now satisfied that this grave oversight has been corrected.
*crawls back into hole*
:happy:0 -
Oh, you don't have to listen to me. Read this: http://hells-ditch.com/2012/08/archaeologists-officially-declare-collective-sigh-over-paleo-diet/
Or, at least, this quote from it:Hoyes, a paleoethnobotanist who specializes in reconstructing prehistoric subsistence, stated that only thing unifying the myriad diets that she’s studied has been their diversity. “You simply do not see specific, trans-regional trends in human subsistence in the archaeological record. People can live off everything from whale blubber to seeds and grasses. You want to know what the ideal human diet consists of? Everything. Humans can and will eat everything, and we are remarkably successful not in spite of this fact, but because of it. Our adaptability is the hallmark of the human species. We’re not called omnivores for nothing.”
As for grains, we have evidence that they were being consumed 30,000 years ago: http://www.sciencenewsdaily.org/archaeology-fossils-news/cluster67315934
Eat what you like. I have no problem with people eating whatever they enjoy. But don't pretend it's the "natural" way humans evolved to eat. There's no such thing.
Another quote from Dr. Britta Hoyes:”You really want to be paleo? Then don’t buy anything from a store. Gather and kill what you need to eat. Wild grasses and tubers, acorns, gophers, crickets- They all provide a lot of nutrition. You’ll spend a lot of energy gathering the stuff, of course, and you’re going to be hungry, but that’ll help you maintain that lean physique you’re after. And hunting down the neighbor’s cats for dinner because you’ve already eaten your way through the local squirrel population will probably give you all the exercise you’ll ever need.”0 -
Oh, you don't have to listen to me. Read this: http://hells-ditch.com/2012/08/archaeologists-officially-declare-collective-sigh-over-paleo-diet/
Or, at least, this quote from it:Hoyes, a paleoethnobotanist who specializes in reconstructing prehistoric subsistence, stated that only thing unifying the myriad diets that she’s studied has been their diversity. “You simply do not see specific, trans-regional trends in human subsistence in the archaeological record. People can live off everything from whale blubber to seeds and grasses. You want to know what the ideal human diet consists of? Everything. Humans can and will eat everything, and we are remarkably successful not in spite of this fact, but because of it. Our adaptability is the hallmark of the human species. We’re not called omnivores for nothing.”
As for grains, we have evidence that they were being consumed 30,000 years ago: http://www.sciencenewsdaily.org/archaeology-fossils-news/cluster67315934
Eat what you like. I have no problem with people eating whatever they enjoy. But don't pretend it's the "natural" way humans evolved to eat. There's no such thing.
Another quote from Dr. Britta Hoyes:”You really want to be paleo? Then don’t buy anything from a store. Gather and kill what you need to eat. Wild grasses and tubers, acorns, gophers, crickets- They all provide a lot of nutrition. You’ll spend a lot of energy gathering the stuff, of course, and you’re going to be hungry, but that’ll help you maintain that lean physique you’re after. And hunting down the neighbor’s cats for dinner because you’ve already eaten your way through the local squirrel population will probably give you all the exercise you’ll ever need.”
I was on board till that last quote. it's called being reasonable. of course no one is "authentically paleo" - i don't even claim to eat paleo, I follow the "primal" school of thought which is more relaxed anyway.
on further inspection, your grain theory doesn't quite hold water. here's the text from your link:Grains of starch discovered on grinding stones suggest that ancient man may have dined on a type of bread at least 30,000 years ago in Europe, researchers reported this week.The findings imply that processing starch grains, perhaps grinding them into flour, was a common practice throughout Europe during the Paleolithic era. If true, this contradicts previous beliefs among many researchers that prehistoric humans were primarily meat eaters. The scientists recovered the grains from grindstones and pestle grinders at archaeological sites in Italy, Russia and the Czech Republic. Each of the three sites was dated to roughly 30,000 years ago. Researchers then analyzed traces of wear and residue on the grindstones and other tools by microscope, and conducted experimental reconstruction of how the tools functioned.The grains appeared to come from starchy cattails and ferns, which are rich in starch and would have provided a substantial source of carbohydrates and energy, the researchers said.
1 - starch grains and wheat/corn/hard shelled grains are VERY different
2 - it absolutely does NOT contradict that they were PRIMARILY meat eaters. It simply implies they also ate starches. As you pointed out, it was all about calories in vs calories expended hunting or gathering their food. Big, fatty animals still provided the best bang for their buck, even if they also had starches in their diets.
Lastly:Richard Wenkel, a biostatician who chaired the panel, explained: “As long as the diet of an individual keeps them alive long enough to successfully mate, then that diet has conferred an evolutionary advantage. By that metric, the agricultural revolution has proven to be the most effective dietary system in the history of our species. We are the most prolific higher-order vertebrate on the planet.” It is a point that he feels is overlooked by Paleo Diet enthusiasts.
Simply keeping you ALIVE for 14-18 years - long enough to procreate - does not prove that grains are BETTER for you than the alternative. Yes, they allowed us to form villages which allowed us to have safety of numbers which allowed us to procreate faster which allowed us to create civilizations, etc, but in NO WAY does that prove that on an individual basis we could properly metabolize grains. In fact, by Hoyes' own admission - and yours - humans can survive off even the most nutritionally deficient foods! So of course we survived off bread and wheat, and it became EVOLUTIONARILY advantageous for us to cultivate it, but that doesn't mean it was nutritionally advantageous on the individual level.0 -
Yogurt. Too much sugar in most brands.
^^^this..wth? I've was always under the impression it was healthy in the past, and also the frozen dinners like lean cuisine lots of sodium...0 -
1 - starch grains and wheat/corn/hard shelled grains are VERY different
2 - it absolutely does NOT contradict that they were PRIMARILY meat eaters. It simply implies they also ate starches. As you pointed out, it was all about calories in vs calories expended hunting or gathering their food. Big, fatty animals still provided the best bang for their buck, even if they also had starches in their diets.
The broad spectrum revisited: Evidence from plant remains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 June 29; 101(26): 9551–9555.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC470712/?tool=pubmed
Eaton et al. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1997) 51, 207±216
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton Paleo Nutri Review EJCN.pdf
65% veg certainly sounds like they were primarily meat eaters and i already posted the first link have a read0 -
1 - starch grains and wheat/corn/hard shelled grains are VERY different
2 - it absolutely does NOT contradict that they were PRIMARILY meat eaters. It simply implies they also ate starches. As you pointed out, it was all about calories in vs calories expended hunting or gathering their food. Big, fatty animals still provided the best bang for their buck, even if they also had starches in their diets.
The broad spectrum revisited: Evidence from plant remains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 June 29; 101(26): 9551–9555.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC470712/?tool=pubmed
Eaton et al. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1997) 51, 207±216
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton Paleo Nutri Review EJCN.pdf
65% veg certainly sounds like they were primarily meat eaters and i already posted the first link have a read
that's outdated research my friend. almost 20 years old.0 -
What is the one food that you used to think was a healthy choice that you have since learned otherwise?
For me its the Baby Carrots. Learning they are doused in chlorine and "bred" to be little ~ it grosses me out enough to not eat them anymore. What's your food?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! This can't be? (insert giant sad face) I just bought baby carrots a couple days ago. I'm still eating them.0 -
Baby carrots are cut from larger "imperfect" carrots. They are not 'bred". They are rinsed in a chlorine solution, then rinsed again with clean water. Do you not wash your veggies before eating them?
Not in bleach, I don't!
Bleach is a common cleanser and when used in diluted solutions is absolutely harmless, especially after rinsing. Fear mongering will not get us anywhere.
and it beats getting e.coli!0 -
Good article about almond milk.
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/coconut-and-almond-milk-in-cartons-not-a-healthy-buy/Almond Milk:(
Grains/legumes/dairy
Why is almond milk "bad"?
LOL I will take my chances. Food kooks are my pet peeve. This is bad for you. That is bad for you. This food has .000002% of a DANGEROUS chemical not proven to actually do anything but let's be paranoid about it. Gluten blah blah blah.
I agree. I haven't cut anything from my diet really. I just incorporate more veggies & fruits and eat the fatty/greasy foods in moderation. I have managed to loose 43 lbs by just doing that.0 -
Anything "lean cuisine", or "eating right". Or frozen food in general. I used to consume those every day. Thought I was doing myself a favor. And they're so expensive!
Low fat anything. If it's not already naturally low in fat, slapping "low fat" on the label guarantees that I won't buy it.0 -
OHHHHHHH
Most have CarrageenanAlmond Milk:(
Grains/legumes/dairy
Why is almond milk "bad"?
The thread was worth reading for this comment.0 -
And don't forget the leaky gut syndrome.
You mean gut permeability, and it's a real thing regulated by zonulin. (I have it... it's linked to something called "celiac disease")
http://physrev.physiology.org/content/91/1/151.longZonulin Is Upregulated in the Intestinal Mucosa of Celiac Disease Patients
We have previously reported that zonulin is upregulated during the acute phase of CD (62, 50) and that zonulin is released from intestinal mucosa following exposure to either gluten or microorganisms (50, 53, 157, 172). However, HPs have never been reported to be expressed in the intestine. Using specific HP primers, we have shown for the first time the expression of both HP2 and HPR mRNA in human intestine (159). RT-PCR experiments showed that zonulin was significantly higher in CD patients compared with controls, while CD patients on a gluten-free diet showed intermediate mean values (159). We have confirmed zonulin overexpression in both intestinal epithelial cells and lamina propria cells by in situ immunohistochemistry studies (Fig. 10). Interestingly, Papp et al. (127) have recently reported that HP polymorphism represents a novel genetic risk factor for CD development and its clinical manifestations. The authors found that the phenotype HP2–1 was associated with a significant risk of CD. Conversely, HP2–2 was less frequent in CD patients than in controls, but patients having this phenotype were at an increased risk for severe malabsorption (127). Therefore, it is tempting to hypothesize that one copy of the zonulin gene increases the risk of CD because of its permeating effect on the intestinal barrier, while two copies of this gene, causing a severe malabsorption secondary to a more profound intestinal barrier dysfunction, led to high mortality and, therefore, was negatively selected during evolution. Interestingly, our proteomic analysis of sera from CD patients revealed a higher percentage of HP2 haplotype (either homozygote or heterozygote) compared with healthy controls (see Table 1) (159). These data suggest that only 7% of CD patients do not possess the zonulin gene.
Note... this wonder of syndromes has not a doggone thing to do with what you ate... but what genes your parents gifted you with.0 -
Well, when you take into account that according to the paleontological and archaeological records, humans evolved eating just about everything that the "paleo diet" says to eliminate, then yes, eating paleo is orthorexic.I don't do lactose, and I have currently cut out grains as well. Does that make me orthorexic or paranoid?
Cutting them doesn't. But the reason you cut them might.
because my voice works better when i dont ingest dairy and i experience less inflammation and have more energy when i don't eat grains?
orthorexic?
It doesn't sounds like it. Unless you believe they are bad for everyone based on your symptoms.
I mean... Mark Sisson and the paleo community make some very, very valid points. and as I believe in holistic medicine, that community generally tends to feel the same way about dairy and wheat in particular.
However, don't confuse my feelings with orthorexia, which is an "irrational fear of food or food groups"
I'm not afraid of food, I simply think there are some foods that we would be better off if we cut back on. Simple as that.
We? Okay, I'm rethinking my answer. I'm no mental health professional, but I'm pretty sure the "paleo" ideology would qualify as orthorexic.
eating the way we evolved to eat is orthorexic??
Early man lived on nuts, seeds, legumes, grasses, and occasional meat and fruits (depending on climate.)
Also,Paleolithic intake consists of about double the amount of calcium, and more than three times the amount of carbohydrates than current humans ingest. The hunter-gatherers also had a wide variety of fruit and vegetables, often more than one hundred different varieties (Eaton, Eaton III, Konner, 1992).
The "paleo diet" quite honestly would be much more accurately named the "anti-paleo diet."0 -
I just think food is good. I have a positive outlook, I take care of me as well as I can, I know my weaknesses. The only thing I worry about is hydrogenated fats but this is pretty easy to avoid.0
-
50 years or so? The first GMO wheat introduced to the food market occurred in 2009. 4 years ago. Obesity and other health issues started long before GMO wheat happened.eating the way we evolved to eat is orthorexic??
Implying we stopped evolving at paleolithic times is mildly amusing to me
10,000 years ago is a blink of an eye in terms of how long humans have been on the planet. in the last 10,000 years, no, we haven't evolved all that much - at least not biologically. Sure science and thinking have grown in leaps and bounds, but physiologically we are almost identical to pre-agriculture humans.
Except we have the tools necesary to properly cook certain foods, mill others, and an agrarian society is the primary reason for community living and modern civilization. Otherwise we would just be nomads and wanderers trying to go find and kill our next meal
absolutely - but just because we have the tools to do it, doesn't mean our organs have caught up. especially since we've genetically altered wheat in the last 50 years or so. It'll take thousands of years for our physiology to adapt to it, and by then i'm sure there will be something else!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