Eating Paleo, Dreaming of Grain

Options
1568101120

Replies

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    now you are moving the goal posts..

    we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...

    I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.

    LOL oh really …

    what would those differences be?????

    So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?

    And so are today's fruits, and... btw, do you eat broccoli? Cauliflower?

  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,598 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    MalineVD wrote: »
    I've been eating paleo for almost 3 years now. Can't eat gluten due to healthproblems and also wanted to stop eating (added) sugars.
    You'll learn other ways to feel full :)
    The beginning is really hard. I was craving bread and pasta for weeks! You're also feeling the effects of no sugar.. Try to have moooooore protein and good fats. Snacks like an apple with almond butter always fill me up pretty good. I eat meat and fish and eggs like crazy and I always have home made soup in my fridge.

    almond butter was around in the Paleolithic era….really???

    Dude, it's not whether almond butter was around the Paleolithic era, it's whether one could derive it from a source that would've been around in the Paleolithic era. If it's from a source that one would surmise was around to be eaten by our ancestors then one can conclude a derivative of it would be considered Paleo as well.

    If you need more information, consider the following:

    http://ultimatepaleoguide.com/almonds-paleo/

    It's really easy to do a Google search on a food item and just ask a question regarding it. The Founder of Paleo is included in the search:

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=is+almond+paleo

    This is really simple stuff. Instead of picking apart someone's comment, try doing the research.

    link me to the archeological dig that shows people were eating almond butter in the Paleolithic era….

    You obviously don't understand the point. It's useless discussing something you with you if you cannot understand the underlying facts. This isn't about almond butter - this is about whether the DERIVATIVE almond butter can be sourced to the ingredients that would've been considered part of the Paleolithic era.

    That's it. If you cannot understand that, you will never get it. You don't have to be Paleo to understand that simple fact. It's called SOURCING.

    Yes, it is about almond butter. The person said they eat paleo and eat almond butter, my point is that almond butter was not consumed by paleolithic people; hence, it is not paleo.

    Yes or No, did paleolithic people eat almond butter?

    I think you like being deliberately obtuse.
    You know full well that 'Paleo' is just a name used for marketing purposes; it doesn't literally mean that people who follow this WOE eat exactly as Paleolithic people ate.
    And you also know full well (I hope) that wheat production went through vast changes in the 1950s and 60s; this is a matter of historical fact not something you need a research paper to prove. Whether you think that today's wheat is better or worse for you than the stuff your grandmother cooked with depends on whose story you choose to believe.

    Thank you for proving my point that Paleo is just a marketing scam that has nothing to do with the actual Paleolithic era.

    And since the other poster will not, please link us to research showing the differences in grain production and how that adversely affects modern man...

    I looked up a little history lesson for you, just because I'm nice (and it only took about five seconds). This is in reply to your original question wanting someone to 'prove' that the grains today are different than they were pre-1960s. (Which was a bizarre question in the first place.)

    http://preventdisease.com/news/12/011612_Modern-Wheat-Really-Isnt-Wheat-At-All.shtml



    Hey, if you'll give a biased woo site, I'll give you bias from the USDA

    http://wheat.pw.usda.gov/ggpages/Wheat__Improvement-Myth_Versus_FactFINAL.pdf

    Government propaganda.

    19aemabpw8svzjpg.jpg


    Does that cat's tinfoil hat have liberty spikes??? :D awesome.
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    now you are moving the goal posts..

    we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...

    I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.

    LOL oh really …

    what would those differences be?????

    So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?

    And so are today's fruits, and... btw, do you eat broccoli? Cauliflower?

    This. I challenge anyone to find an agricultural product that was NOT modified.



  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    now you are moving the goal posts..

    we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...

    I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.

    LOL oh really …

    what would those differences be?????

    So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?

    I asked THAT poster to explain the differences, but since you have ridden to her rescue you can now do it.

    I am not agreeing to anything until you link me to the reputable source proving your/her point.


  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    now you are moving the goal posts..

    we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...

    I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.

    LOL oh really …

    what would those differences be?????

    So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?

    And so are today's fruits, and... btw, do you eat broccoli? Cauliflower?

    Not at all relevant to the point I was addressing, which was to clarify that fact that the grains grown today are strains that were developed in the 1950/60s.
  • pawamonster
    pawamonster Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    duty_calls.png
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    now you are moving the goal posts..

    we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...

    I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.

    LOL oh really …

    what would those differences be?????

    So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?

    I asked THAT poster to explain the differences, but since you have ridden to her rescue you can now do it.

    I am not agreeing to anything until you link me to the reputable source proving your/her point.


    Already provided a second source, but here it is again
    http://www.economist.com/node/5323362
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    now you are moving the goal posts..

    we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...

    I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.

    LOL oh really …

    what would those differences be?????

    So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?

    And so are today's fruits, and... btw, do you eat broccoli? Cauliflower?

    Not at all relevant to the point I was addressing, which was to clarify that fact that the grains grown today are strains that were developed in the 1950/60s.

    And this is bad because?


    ndj1979 wrote: »

    "And since the other poster will not, please link us to research showing the differences in grain production and how that adversely affects modern man..."

    I like how you keep ignoring the bolded portion.

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    now you are moving the goal posts..

    we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...

    I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.

    LOL oh really …

    what would those differences be?????

    So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?

    And so are today's fruits, and... btw, do you eat broccoli? Cauliflower?

    Not at all relevant to the point I was addressing, which was to clarify that fact that the grains grown today are strains that were developed in the 1950/60s.

    Okay, so Borlaug modified wheat to produce it on a larger scale to feed a growing world population. He was also not the first to modify wheat. Stating it like some monster wheat was created is just sensationalism. Wheat has been messed with since man has figured out he could selectively breed it.

    SO where does that leave the whole argument?

    Find me an agricultural food product that has not had human intervention?

    Also, you haven't proven that it's not anything other than another in a long line of modifications. The other poster made it sound like it was some drastic change to the inherent nature of the wheat. You even went so far as to be hyperbolic with "not really wheat".

    Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. You haven't provided it.

  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    now you are moving the goal posts..

    we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...

    I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.

    LOL oh really …

    what would those differences be?????

    So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?

    And so are today's fruits, and... btw, do you eat broccoli? Cauliflower?

    Not at all relevant to the point I was addressing, which was to clarify that fact that the grains grown today are strains that were developed in the 1950/60s.

    And this is bad because?


    ndj1979 wrote: »

    "And since the other poster will not, please link us to research showing the differences in grain production and how that adversely affects modern man..."

    I like how you keep ignoring the bolded portion.

    That was from a later post. I was answering his first question.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    now you are moving the goal posts..

    we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...

    I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.

    LOL oh really …

    what would those differences be?????

    So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?

    And so are today's fruits, and... btw, do you eat broccoli? Cauliflower?

    Not at all relevant to the point I was addressing, which was to clarify that fact that the grains grown today are strains that were developed in the 1950/60s.

    Okay, so Borlaug modified wheat to produce it on a larger scale to feed a growing world population. He was also not the first to modify wheat. Stating it like some monster wheat was created is just sensationalism. Wheat has been messed with since man has figured out he could selectively breed it.

    SO where does that leave the whole argument?

    Find me an agricultural food product that has not had human intervention?

    all this

    Per your link
    It is derived from three wild ancestral species in two separate mergers. The first took place in the Levant 10,000 years ago, the second near the Caspian Sea 2,000 years later. The result was a plant with extra-large seeds incapable of dispersal in the wild, dependent entirely on people to sow them.

    It was modified for the first time 10,000 years ago...and again 8000 years later...

    There is always changes going on..natural and man made changes..but again

    explain how that adversely affects modern man...

    Today's bananas won't be around if anything happens to us...
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    now you are moving the goal posts..

    we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...

    I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.

    LOL oh really …

    what would those differences be?????

    So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?

    And so are today's fruits, and... btw, do you eat broccoli? Cauliflower?

    Not at all relevant to the point I was addressing, which was to clarify that fact that the grains grown today are strains that were developed in the 1950/60s.

    Okay, so Borlaug modified wheat to produce it on a larger scale to feed a growing world population. He was also not the first to modify wheat. Stating it like some monster wheat was created is just sensationalism. Wheat has been messed with since man has figured out he could selectively breed it.

    SO where does that leave the whole argument?

    Find me an agricultural food product that has not had human intervention?

    Thank you! Now I'm glad someone has acknowledged the point, at least.
    (I shouldn't let it, but it winds me up no end when I see people disputing known historical facts.)
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    now you are moving the goal posts..

    we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...

    I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.

    LOL oh really …

    what would those differences be?????

    So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?

    And so are today's fruits, and... btw, do you eat broccoli? Cauliflower?

    Not at all relevant to the point I was addressing, which was to clarify that fact that the grains grown today are strains that were developed in the 1950/60s.

    And this is bad because?


    ndj1979 wrote: »

    "And since the other poster will not, please link us to research showing the differences in grain production and how that adversely affects modern man..."

    I like how you keep ignoring the bolded portion.

    That was from a later post. I was answering his first question.

    so then there is no adverse affects between modern wheat and wheat grown 10,000 years ago? Glad we agree.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    now you are moving the goal posts..

    we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...

    I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.

    LOL oh really …

    what would those differences be?????

    So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?

    And so are today's fruits, and... btw, do you eat broccoli? Cauliflower?

    Not at all relevant to the point I was addressing, which was to clarify that fact that the grains grown today are strains that were developed in the 1950/60s.

    Okay, so Borlaug modified wheat to produce it on a larger scale to feed a growing world population. He was also not the first to modify wheat. Stating it like some monster wheat was created is just sensationalism. Wheat has been messed with since man has figured out he could selectively breed it.

    SO where does that leave the whole argument?

    Find me an agricultural food product that has not had human intervention?

    Thank you! Now I'm glad someone has acknowledged the point, at least.
    (I shouldn't let it, but it winds me up no end when I see people disputing known historical facts.)

    Not so fast. You didn't address this:
    Also, you haven't proven that it's not anything other than another in a long line of modifications. The other poster made it sound like it was some drastic change to the inherent nature of the wheat. You even went so far as to be hyperbolic with "not really wheat".

    Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. You haven't provided it.

    Care to give it a go?


  • cc3833
    cc3833 Posts: 80 Member
    Options
    I don't do Paleo. Buttt I can't eat carbs. I cut out rice, cereal, pasta, and bread... no potatoes either. But I'm doing to because they really affect my focus. I ride and jump horses and eating those types of carbs makes my mind a few seconds slower, and when you're jumping those couple of seconds count. I eat a ton of food. And I allow myself a granola bar a few times a week. I learned that cauliflower and spaghetti squash are my favorite carbs! You can make them so many different ways and I don't feel deprived at all! I made spaghetti squash hashbrowns the other day because I just wanted something "bad" for me. I wouldn't restrict my carbs if they didn't have such an affect on me. Make sure you're eating enough food and drinking enough water! I've been doing this for about 2 months now. And make sure you find alternatives to your favorite foods! If you need any advice on what kind of recpies to make message me I would love to help! I even made spaghetti squash mac and cheese! It does make you pretty creative!!!
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,038 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    now you are moving the goal posts..

    we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...

    I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.

    LOL oh really …

    what would those differences be?????

    So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?

    And so are today's fruits, and... btw, do you eat broccoli? Cauliflower?

    Not at all relevant to the point I was addressing, which was to clarify that fact that the grains grown today are strains that were developed in the 1950/60s.

    Okay, so Borlaug modified wheat to produce it on a larger scale to feed a growing world population. He was also not the first to modify wheat. Stating it like some monster wheat was created is just sensationalism. Wheat has been messed with since man has figured out he could selectively breed it.

    SO where does that leave the whole argument?

    Find me an agricultural food product that has not had human intervention?

    Thank you! Now I'm glad someone has acknowledged the point, at least.
    (I shouldn't let it, but it winds me up no end when I see people disputing known historical facts.)

    Not so fast. You didn't address this:
    Also, you haven't proven that it's not anything other than another in a long line of modifications. The other poster made it sound like it was some drastic change to the inherent nature of the wheat. You even went so far as to be hyperbolic with "not really wheat".

    Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. You haven't provided it.

    Care to give it a go?


    You added that after I answered... (:-)
    Borlaug was the one who introduced mutant strains of wheat. His wheat was shorter and thicker (so it would stand up) and resistant to disease. Now, I'm certainly not qualified to make a judgement on how 'important' those developments were, but someone thought they were significant enough to give Borlaug a Nobel Prize for.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    cc3833 wrote: »
    I don't do Paleo. Buttt I can't eat carbs. I cut out rice, cereal, pasta, and bread... no potatoes either. But I'm doing to because they really affect my focus. I ride and jump horses and eating those types of carbs makes my mind a few seconds slower, and when you're jumping those couple of seconds count. I eat a ton of food. And I allow myself a granola bar a few times a week. I learned that cauliflower and spaghetti squash are my favorite carbs! You can make them so many different ways and I don't feel deprived at all! I made spaghetti squash hashbrowns the other day because I just wanted something "bad" for me. I wouldn't restrict my carbs if they didn't have such an affect on me. Make sure you're eating enough food and drinking enough water! I've been doing this for about 2 months now. And make sure you find alternatives to your favorite foods! If you need any advice on what kind of recpies to make message me I would love to help! I even made spaghetti squash mac and cheese! It does make you pretty creative!!!

    You can't eat carbs, but you have favorite carbs?

    I'm utterly confused.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    now you are moving the goal posts..

    we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...

    I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.

    LOL oh really …

    what would those differences be?????

    So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?

    And so are today's fruits, and... btw, do you eat broccoli? Cauliflower?

    Not at all relevant to the point I was addressing, which was to clarify that fact that the grains grown today are strains that were developed in the 1950/60s.

    Okay, so Borlaug modified wheat to produce it on a larger scale to feed a growing world population. He was also not the first to modify wheat. Stating it like some monster wheat was created is just sensationalism. Wheat has been messed with since man has figured out he could selectively breed it.

    SO where does that leave the whole argument?

    Find me an agricultural food product that has not had human intervention?

    Thank you! Now I'm glad someone has acknowledged the point, at least.
    (I shouldn't let it, but it winds me up no end when I see people disputing known historical facts.)

    Not so fast. You didn't address this:
    Also, you haven't proven that it's not anything other than another in a long line of modifications. The other poster made it sound like it was some drastic change to the inherent nature of the wheat. You even went so far as to be hyperbolic with "not really wheat".

    Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. You haven't provided it.

    Care to give it a go?


    You added that after I answered... (:-)
    Borlaug was the one who introduced mutant strains of wheat. His wheat was shorter and thicker (so it would stand up) and resistant to disease. Now, I'm certainly not qualified to make a judgement on how 'important' those developments were, but someone thought they were significant enough to give Borlaug a Nobel Prize for.

    not true per your article...this first mutation was at the advent of wheat, the 2nd 2000 years later with The result was a plant with extra-large seeds incapable of dispersal in the wild, dependent entirely on people to sow them.
  • cc3833
    cc3833 Posts: 80 Member
    Options
    Janejeelyroll sorry I should have specified. I can't eat certain ones!!! LOL I can't eat grain carbs. I've tried different variations but the only ones that don't mess me up are fruits and veggies! I've tried adding some back in but then I get all foggy again.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    now you are moving the goal posts..

    we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...

    I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.

    LOL oh really …

    what would those differences be?????

    So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?

    And so are today's fruits, and... btw, do you eat broccoli? Cauliflower?

    Not at all relevant to the point I was addressing, which was to clarify that fact that the grains grown today are strains that were developed in the 1950/60s.

    Okay, so Borlaug modified wheat to produce it on a larger scale to feed a growing world population. He was also not the first to modify wheat. Stating it like some monster wheat was created is just sensationalism. Wheat has been messed with since man has figured out he could selectively breed it.

    SO where does that leave the whole argument?

    Find me an agricultural food product that has not had human intervention?

    Thank you! Now I'm glad someone has acknowledged the point, at least.
    (I shouldn't let it, but it winds me up no end when I see people disputing known historical facts.)

    Not so fast. You didn't address this:
    Also, you haven't proven that it's not anything other than another in a long line of modifications. The other poster made it sound like it was some drastic change to the inherent nature of the wheat. You even went so far as to be hyperbolic with "not really wheat".

    Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. You haven't provided it.

    Care to give it a go?


    You added that after I answered... (:-)
    Borlaug was the one who introduced mutant strains of wheat. His wheat was shorter and thicker (so it would stand up) and resistant to disease. Now, I'm certainly not qualified to make a judgement on how 'important' those developments were, but someone thought they were significant enough to give Borlaug a Nobel Prize for.

    not true per your article...this first mutation was at the advent of wheat, the 2nd 2000 years later with The result was a plant with extra-large seeds incapable of dispersal in the wild, dependent entirely on people to sow them.

    so wheat was actually modified before 1960...interesting...
This discussion has been closed.