Eating Paleo, Dreaming of Grain
Options
Replies
-
Paleo man ate from the land hunted and gathered from the land around him didn't eat modern grains and ran barefoot and lived till the average age of 35. Modern Man and women eat highly processed foods and run on ultra cushioned shoes and live into there 70s and 80s. Just saying
0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »Paleo man ate from the land hunted and gathered from the land around him didn't eat modern grains and ran barefoot and lived till the average age of 35. Modern Man and women eat highly processed foods and run on ultra cushioned shoes and live into there 70s and 80s. Just saying
I eat deer and moose meat, partridge and pheasant and wild turkey...I don't hunt barefoot but we use a crossbow, compound bow and use a hut we made ourselves...does that count?
*note I do all those things but I am not a paleo type0 -
I'm sorry, I was never very good at history. But weren't humans on the menu during the paleolithic era?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 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.CountryMom03 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:mamapeach910 wrote: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.
ALL the modifactions made to wheat, going back to the first ones, were mutant. That's what mutation means.
Borlaug did nothing more than fancy, knowledge-enhanced selective breeding, a process that has been going on since man figured out he could do it.
He got a Nobel Prize because a lot of people saw it as an advancement towards solving world hunger.
There is nothing fundamentally different about the wheat.
Did you know, that back in the Paleolithc, the plant that ALL brascias came from -- cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, Brussels Sprouts, kohlrabi... all of them... was simply a plain, leafy plant? Through selective breeding and the intervention of man, we have all of these different varieties of cole crops.
What's been done to wheat is no different. You can put hyperbolic, loaded words around selective breeding and make it sound like a nightmarish thing, but it doesn't make it so.
0 -
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 eat granola bars?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 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.CountryMom03 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:mamapeach910 wrote: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.
I'm not sure those qualify as mutations; the source I referenced refers to those as "mergers". The first use of the word mutation is used in correlation with Borlaug. But I may well be wrong about that; if so I hold my hands up but it doesn't nullify my point.0 -
mamapeach910 ... I know... I have been messing around with it for 2 months now. I can only eat them twice a week... my point is you don't need to follow a specific diet. People need to do what is right for them. Every body is different. And what works for one person may not work for someone else. I am a work in progress. I love grains... I want to find the formula that works for me.0
-
mamapeach910 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 eat granola bars?
I think we've come full circle and the word "carb" is now meaningless. I'm just going to start acting like everyone else and use it for a stand-in for the things I don't eat regardless of whether or not it makes sense.
"Sorry, no carbs for me. I'm vegan."
"But, uh --"
"I said NO CARBS! Don't you understand nutrition?"0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 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.CountryMom03 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:mamapeach910 wrote: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.
He literally save millions of lives. Millions. So, yeah, I'd say that his work was 'important.'0 -
you mean you restricted whole food groups and want to know why you are feeling tired all the time?
Also, paleo is totally unnecessary for weight loss, and the menu you posted is nothing how paleolithic people ate.
get a food scale and weigh all solids
log everything into MFP
keep working out
repeat until you get desired results…
ditch the paleo
Wait dude are you saying that paleolithic man didn't crack open a tube of sausage or grill some burgers on the BBQ? Next you'll tell me that even though sweet potatoes and avocados were only growing wild in Central America during that period paleo-man couldn't just order them on-line. Man that would be like living in the stone ages.0 -
you mean you restricted whole food groups and want to know why you are feeling tired all the time?
Also, paleo is totally unnecessary for weight loss, and the menu you posted is nothing how paleolithic people ate.
get a food scale and weigh all solids
log everything into MFP
keep working out
repeat until you get desired results…
ditch the paleo
Wait dude are you saying that paleolithic man didn't crack open a tube of sausage or grill some burgers on the BBQ? Next you'll tell me that even though sweet potatoes and avocados were only growing wild in Central America during that period paleo-man couldn't just order them on-line. Man that would be like living in the stone ages.
don't you know that every cave in the paleo era came equipped with food processors, grills, and ovens???0 -
I love how people on restrictive diets always report the same non-specific symptoms improving, even if they're diametrically opposed to one another. Vegans, fruitarians, paleo, keto, etc. always say they have more energy, less brain fog, less depression, better body composition, and greater sexual prowess than before said diet. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you *the placebo effect*. You feel better because you think you'll feel better. /slow clap0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
I'm not sure those qualify as mutations; the source I referenced refers to those as "mergers". The first use of the word mutation is used in correlation with Borlaug. But I may well be wrong about that; if so I hold my hands up but it doesn't nullify my point.
Nah, that's not how it works. In the old days, a desired trait pops up in a plant that doesn't usually appear. It's a mutation. That mutation is bred to become dominant in the crop.
Now a days, scientists can influence the mutation process with radiation instead of waiting for it to spontaneously happen.
That difference accounts for the fear-mongering.
Both examples are cases of mutation breeding.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
Borlaug did nothing more than fancy, knowledge-enhanced selective breeding, a process that has been going on since man figured out he could do it.
He got a Nobel Prize because a lot of people saw it as an advancement towards solving world hunger.
There is nothing fundamentally different about the wheat.
Hmm, pretty sure you might be downplaying his contribution just a tad. I'm not going to get into a debate about it, and it's getting far, far away from the point of the thread, but I'll leave you with a few snippets from his obituary:
"When Borlaug was doing his groundbreaking work in the 60s, he didn’t have the advanced tools that breeders have today. He used something called “mutation breeding.” That method uses radiation or mutagenic chemicals to increase the number of gene mutations in a population of seeds and then a search is made for the extremely rare cases where the mutation is beneficial. Compared to modern biotechnology this is a pretty crude approach, but that was the only method Borlaug had to speed up the process of trait selection."
Doesn't sound to me like something that just happens on its own in nature, but I'm not a scientist.
{Edit: just saw your other post explaining it. That makes sense – thanks; and of course thinking about it there are mutations in nature.}
And then:
"It is likely that he saved more human lives than any other person in history. He did it by developing far more productive wheat than had ever been grown. His “short stature” wheat had shorter, thicker stems so that it could hold bigger heads of grain that would otherwise “lodge” (collapse over on to the ground where it can’t be harvested). It was also resistant to the devastating wheat disease called “Stem Rust.”"
I would classify this as "fundamentally different", but again, I'm not a scientist...
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Borlaug did nothing more than fancy, knowledge-enhanced selective breeding, a process that has been going on since man figured out he could do it.
He got a Nobel Prize because a lot of people saw it as an advancement towards solving world hunger.
There is nothing fundamentally different about the wheat.
Hmm, pretty sure you might be downplaying his contribution just a tad. I'm not going to get into a debate about it, and it's getting far, far away from the point of the thread, but I'll leave you with a few snippets from his obituary:
"When Borlaug was doing his groundbreaking work in the 60s, he didn’t have the advanced tools that breeders have today. He used something called “mutation breeding.” That method uses radiation or mutagenic chemicals to increase the number of gene mutations in a population of seeds and then a search is made for the extremely rare cases where the mutation is beneficial. Compared to modern biotechnology this is a pretty crude approach, but that was the only method Borlaug had to speed up the process of trait selection."
Doesn't sound to me like something that just happens on its own in nature, but I'm not a scientist.
Selective breeding doesn't either.And then:
"It is likely that he saved more human lives than any other person in history. He did it by developing far more productive wheat than had ever been grown. His “short stature” wheat had shorter, thicker stems so that it could hold bigger heads of grain that would otherwise “lodge” (collapse over on to the ground where it can’t be harvested). It was also resistant to the devastating wheat disease called “Stem Rust.”"
I would classify this as "fundamentally different", but again, I'm not a scientist...
By this criteria, every modification (by selective breeding or otherwise) will make the crop "fundamentally different".
Everything we eat is fundamentally different from that found in nature. Why do you think this is bad?
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Borlaug did nothing more than fancy, knowledge-enhanced selective breeding, a process that has been going on since man figured out he could do it.
He got a Nobel Prize because a lot of people saw it as an advancement towards solving world hunger.
There is nothing fundamentally different about the wheat.
Hmm, pretty sure you might be downplaying his contribution just a tad. I'm not going to get into a debate about it, and it's getting far, far away from the point of the thread, but I'll leave you with a few snippets from his obituary:
"When Borlaug was doing his groundbreaking work in the 60s, he didn’t have the advanced tools that breeders have today. He used something called “mutation breeding.” That method uses radiation or mutagenic chemicals to increase the number of gene mutations in a population of seeds and then a search is made for the extremely rare cases where the mutation is beneficial. Compared to modern biotechnology this is a pretty crude approach, but that was the only method Borlaug had to speed up the process of trait selection."
Doesn't sound to me like something that just happens on its own in nature, but I'm not a scientist.
Selective breeding doesn't either.And then:
"It is likely that he saved more human lives than any other person in history. He did it by developing far more productive wheat than had ever been grown. His “short stature” wheat had shorter, thicker stems so that it could hold bigger heads of grain that would otherwise “lodge” (collapse over on to the ground where it can’t be harvested). It was also resistant to the devastating wheat disease called “Stem Rust.”"
I would classify this as "fundamentally different", but again, I'm not a scientist...
By this criteria, every modification (by selective breeding or otherwise) will make the crop "fundamentally different".
Everything we eat is fundamentally different from that found in nature. Why do you think this is bad?
Well, his modifications were apparently significant enough to prevent mass starvation at the time.
And I don't, necessarily, think it is bad. (I don't actually know what you mean, in fact.)0 -
Skycake510 wrote: »I love how people on restrictive diets always report the same non-specific symptoms improving, even if they're diametrically opposed to one another. Vegans, fruitarians, paleo, keto, etc. always say they have more energy, less brain fog, less depression, better body composition, and greater sexual prowess than before said diet. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you *the placebo effect*. You feel better because you think you'll feel better. /slow clap
Yep, noticed that too. "Since I stopped eating meat I feel so much better!" "Since I started eating almost only meat I feel so much better!"0 -
Skycake510 wrote: »I love how people on restrictive diets always report the same non-specific symptoms improving, even if they're diametrically opposed to one another. Vegans, fruitarians, paleo, keto, etc. always say they have more energy, less brain fog, less depression, better body composition, and greater sexual prowess than before said diet. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you *the placebo effect*. You feel better because you think you'll feel better. /slow clap
Poppycock.
It just means there are a variety of methods that work. And the best method to use will depend on the individual.
And even there are some cases where it is placebo effect, if the person feels better then mission accomplised. The power of the mind, and all that.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Borlaug did nothing more than fancy, knowledge-enhanced selective breeding, a process that has been going on since man figured out he could do it.
He got a Nobel Prize because a lot of people saw it as an advancement towards solving world hunger.
There is nothing fundamentally different about the wheat.
Hmm, pretty sure you might be downplaying his contribution just a tad. I'm not going to get into a debate about it, and it's getting far, far away from the point of the thread, but I'll leave you with a few snippets from his obituary:
"When Borlaug was doing his groundbreaking work in the 60s, he didn’t have the advanced tools that breeders have today. He used something called “mutation breeding.” That method uses radiation or mutagenic chemicals to increase the number of gene mutations in a population of seeds and then a search is made for the extremely rare cases where the mutation is beneficial. Compared to modern biotechnology this is a pretty crude approach, but that was the only method Borlaug had to speed up the process of trait selection."
Doesn't sound to me like something that just happens on its own in nature, but I'm not a scientist.
{Edit: just saw your other post explaining it. That makes sense – thanks; and of course thinking about it there are mutations in nature.}
And then:
"It is likely that he saved more human lives than any other person in history. He did it by developing far more productive wheat than had ever been grown. His “short stature” wheat had shorter, thicker stems so that it could hold bigger heads of grain that would otherwise “lodge” (collapse over on to the ground where it can’t be harvested). It was also resistant to the devastating wheat disease called “Stem Rust.”"
I would classify this as "fundamentally different", but again, I'm not a scientist...
He mutated the stem and the seeds. Okay, let's break this down. 8000 years ago, guess what happened?
Farmers mutated the seeds.
This is an ongoing process that's been happening, as I said, since man figured out he could do it.
People go crazy because science got involved. That's really all that's happening in all the links you can find. Yes, the wheat is different, but that wheat 8,000 years ago was different from the wheat that came before it. And that wheat? That was from mutation breeding done 10,000 years ago.
Man changes crops. It's really old news.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mamapeach910 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 eat granola bars?
I think we've come full circle and the word "carb" is now meaningless. I'm just going to start acting like everyone else and use it for a stand-in for the things I don't eat regardless of whether or not it makes sense.
"Sorry, no carbs for me. I'm vegan."
"But, uh --"
"I said NO CARBS! Don't you understand nutrition?"
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions