PALEO: pros, cons and whatever else you may think?

*sigh*

ESB > SW...Shrek 2 > Shrek...Terminator 2 > Terminator 1 (although I'm not certain about this one)...

...but I will *not* accept Evil Dead 2 > Evil Dead 1.

That's it. No more.

Whether you accept it or not it's still true.

Comparing Evil Dead 1 and 2 is like comparing Star Wars to Space Balls.

This makes no sense at all.

The original Evil Dead is a horror movie. Evil Dead 2 is a comedy.

The ever growing number of people with intolerances or sensitivities to grains proves that to be incorrect...

The ever growing number of people with intolerances or sensitivities to grains proves that to be incorrect...

There isn't "an ever growing number", there is an ever-decreasing percentage of the population.

Your premise is not congruent with reality.

You know what, I'm giving up on attempting to educate you about the basics of Paleo. It's quite clear that you just want to sit behind your computer and be the jerk making fun of other people's lifestyles rather than participating in actual discussion or attempting to learn anything.

But my question would be, why should I care about some undetectable symptoms if they don't affect my heatlh or make me feel bad?

In for round 2.

Ditto

The sequel is never as good as the original.

Except for Empire Strikes Back... IMO blew away Star Wars

Okay, so that's one vote for ESB > SW and one (really suspect) vote for Shrek 2 > Shrek...

...but those are the *only* exceptions. Ever.

In for round 2.

Ditto

The sequel is never as good as the original.

Except for Empire Strikes Back... IMO blew away Star Wars

Okay, so that's one vote for ESB > SW and one (really suspect) vote for Shrek 2 > Shrek...

...but those are the *only* exceptions. Ever.

Godfather 2 > Godfather

Aliens > Alien

No way!

Alien is a classic.

Aliens is ok....

You must be crazy.

Alien is a good "horror / sci fi" film but Aliens is a master class in action.

That reminds me: Rambo II > Rambo

In for round 2.

Ditto

The sequel is never as good as the original.

Except for Empire Strikes Back... IMO blew away Star Wars

Okay, so that's one vote for ESB > SW and one (really suspect) vote for Shrek 2 > Shrek...

...but those are the *only* exceptions. Ever.

Godfather 2 > Godfather

Aliens > Alien

The only reason the "we didn't evolve eating that" theory exists is for foods that the body hasn't evolved to handle very well.

Ok, let's go with that standard instead, then.

"The vast majority of people handle grain as well as they can handle avocados, therefore both grains and avocados are paleo."

The ever growing number of people with intolerances or sensitivities to grains proves that to be incorrect, whereas as far as I know, there isn't widespread intolerance or sensitivity to avocadoes.

Besides which, even if you do forget any kind of logic or reasoning in the decision making behind those guidelines, you can't just decide something is or isn't Paleo because you say so. The creators of the individual plans are the only ones with that ability, and pretty much by definition any Paleo plan will exclude grains but include fruits and veggies.

what number of people? people being diagnosed or people becoming born with gluten intoelrance?

please go

in 4 garbage arguements

These are not my own words. This is from an interview between Chris Kresser and Mat Lalonde. I paraphrased to make it more concise. I think it is a fairy reasonable way to look at the whole paleo thing...

"There is really no such thing as a “paleo” diet because the foods are not available anymore.  The best you can do it try to mimic it.  So… a diet that’s meat, vegetables, tubers, and fruits… that’s what I call it.

Typical arguments go like this:  Our ancestors and modern hunter-gatherers, who were virtually free of diseases of civilization, consumed a diet that was mostly devoid of grains, legumes, and dairy. People then make the invalid inference that consuming a diet mostly devoid of grains, legumes, and dairy will thus allow us to be free of diseases of civilization.  Why is this invalid? Because it is observational and full of confounding factors (a variable that was not observed).

You can’t observe everything, so there’s almost always going to be, especially when it comes to human beings that are very complex and multivariate that live in a very complex and multivariate environment.  You are never going to see everything.  So observational epidemiology is great for formulating hypotheses and asking questions, but it doesn’t answer any questions.  The same is true about this statement.  You know, it’s just an observation.  It’s just a correlation.  You can’t say for sure that, yes, it is the case that if we eat like that we’re going to avoid the diseases of civilization, so you have to be very, very careful with that.

But there are some folks who are coming from different fields, and really all they’re grasping on is this evolutionary thing, and they don’t realize that all it is really at the end of the day is a great way to formulate hypotheses. We have to be careful not to assume that correlation equals causation. That said, it is reasonable to use that as a starting place, to do some further investigation and see whether or not there is any truth to it.

Another typical argument goes like this: We evolved over millions of years without consuming the foods that became readily available only after the advent of agriculture.  Hence, we’re not adapted to these foods.  But this assumes that a species isn’t adapted to a food because it’s never consumed it.  And if you look at the evolutionary record, that’s incorrect.  There are plenty of examples throughout evolution where species discover novel sources of food and thrive on them. Like humans and meat? Humans started out by eating fruits, plants and insects.  Then they scavenged marrow from bones and also brains from skulls, and eventually became some of the meanest, baddest hunters on the planet.

Thus a better statement would be… There has been insufficient time and evolutionally pressure for complete adaptation to seed consumption to arise in homo-sapiens."

I don't see how "Whole 30" is really that great of a predictor if food bothers you unless its digestive. I am trying to eliminate gluten b/c there are studies that it's connected with my disorder. But, since my disorder took years to really be a noticeable problem, I am guessing 30 days of changing my food is not going to matter. I am looking at this as a 6-12 month experiment.

I would assume they're being diagnosed and/or are discovering it rather than more people are being born with these sensitivities (and I'm not just talking outright gluten intolerance / celiac's disease / etc. though those are included) but I haven't actually studied that area since it's not of particular importance to me.

I thought you took your ball and went home. :laugh:

Your statement is factually incorrect. The percentage of humans with grain issues is *decreasing* on a daily basis.

The end point basically is, there are a lot of people who find that they don't react well when they digest grains, etc.

No, there are not. The fastest growing populations on the planet are in ethnic groups whose diet is completely based on grain consumption. The only relatively small populations where there are grain sensitivities are populations whose migration pattern took them out of Africa and into marginal climatic regions where grains had trouble growing. The implications of that should be clear - it means the normal human condition is eating grains and the "error condition" is *not* eating grains.

Again, if you think you do better without grains - then don't eat them! But don't pontificate that it's because you are somehow closer to a mythical ancestral human diet - realize it's because somewhere along the way your ancestors lost part of their digestive capability, and those genes have been passed on to you.