Paleo, anyone?

You do understand that poison doesn’t necessarily mean you will die five seconds after eating them,,,,, don’t you? You do understand that not everybody has the same reaction to every poison,,,, don’t you? You do understand that just because you are not showing overt symptoms now, that means you will never have problems in the future,,,,, don’t you? I’m sure we all know, smokers, drunks, overweight people, that live will into their 80’s with no discernable problems, where they not taking poison into their bodies?

1) Are you implying grains/dairy/legumes are poisonous? Provide research to back up the claim, please.
2) How come people like the Okinawans and Sardinians can eat lots of non-paleo foods and still both be in the top 5 populations for longest living humans without disability?
3) If you believe strongly that legumes/grains/dairy are a poison, do you believe parents should be allowed to feed their children those foods? As smoking under 18 is illegal, should we treat grains the same as they are, according to paleo, a serious cause for chronic illness?

Not going do it, wouldn’t be prudent.

Grains, spike insulin, look it up yourself, insulin spiking can and will lead to insulin resistance, insulin resistance can a will lead to diabetes. Grains also bind vital nutrients and make them less bio-available, look it up yourself.
Dairy, if I remember is not considered a poison, but something more to take caution with. Many people have lactose intolerance, look it up yourself, for those people Dairy can act as a poison.
Legumes, I will have to get back to you on, I don’t recall the reasoning behind that one, and don’t have the time right now to go back and refresh my memory.
Okinawans and Sardinians, really eats lots of non Paleo foods, like,,,,,,,,,, what? Lots of processed wheat and or other gluten grains?
I don’t believe the government should be raising our children. I do think the government should get out of the way of real nutrition research, and stop promoting big agribusiness at the expense of our health.

Truth is there isn’t a lot real research on strictly “paleo” diets(because it hasn’t been around that long, as a named diet), but there is plenty of research on low carb, and modified low carb, diets which closely mirror Paleo. Take those studies(which overwhelmingly show health benefits) and apply them to Paleo, a diet that follows the same basic framework of the modified low carb, removes most if not all processed foods, and you think that is not going to have beneficial outcomes? There is also plenty of anthropological evidence that humans did not have the same problems (diet related) as we modern humans do, since the advent of agriculture, and especially since the advent of processed agriculture

I understand you are a science geek, and if it’s not in some peer reviewed book it just doesn’t exist in your eyes. And that is fine, but there are many, real, facts, that come from other than peer reviewed papers, and there are many BS “facts” that come from pear reviewed papers.

Well I got to go, heading to the mountains for the weekend, so you will have to carry on without me until Monday.

Grains and legumes: Lectins

http://www.vrp.com/digestive-health/lectins-their-damaging-role-in-intestinal-health-rheumatoid-arthritis-and-weight-loss
http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1115436/
http://www.totalhealthbreakthroughs.com/2009/07/lectins-a-little-known-trouble-maker/
http://ezinearticles.com/?Food-Lectins-in-Health-and-Disease:-An-Introduction&id=275056

I could've kept posting but some articles were a little too scientific for the average reader.

None of these are relevant for a few reasons:

1) All except for one (the one with the ncbi in the url) are NOT scientific publications. They were websites. They are not specific scientific, peer-reviewed journals. I could go find lots of websites with articles written by people who may have some academic credentials that are spewing nonsense like the utter importance of eating every 2-3 hours to stoke the metabolic fire. It's not a proper source for the issue we are debating.

2) The one that you did post is STRICTLY based on: a) correlations and b) research that is rooted in the biomechanics. The former type of research does not build cause/effect relationships, but ONLY looks at trends. The latter looks at the impractical high level feeding of certain foods in animals, often genetically altered, to see the biochemical pathway. This is NOT a reflection of regular feeding. It would be similar to finding some dogs, giving them 3 fifths of vodka each, seeing the results, then saying humans should avoid alcohol; EVEN just a single serving of beer. That's how biomechanical research works.

Let's quote some stuff from this study:

-"Certain foods (wheat, soya) are indeed diabetogenic in genetically susceptible mice." - cool, genetically mutated mice. Not relevant to me and my 1-2 whole grain tortilla intake per day.
-"Among the effects observed in the small intestine of lectin fed rodents is stripping away of the mucous coat to expose naked mucosa and overgrowth of the mucosa by abnormal bacteria and protozoa. Lectins also cause discharge of histamine from gastric mast cells." - interesting, but still rooted in biochemical research on rodents, which have a VASTLY different digestive system from humans.
-"But if we all eat lectins, why don’t we all get insulin dependent diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, IgA nephropathy, and peptic ulcers? Partly because of biological variation in the glycoconjugates that coat our cells and partly because these are protected behind a fine screen of sialic acid molecules, attached to the glycoprotein tips. We should be safe." - self-explanatory.

If you want to prove the cause and effect of practical and realistic consumption of non-paleo foods, then you must provide a research study that has the following:

1) Large N (lots of participants).
2) Must have enough diversity, or must look at a specific population (and accept in the discussion section that the results may not apply to the general population that is the human race).
3) Divided into groups that differ ONLY in food source: macronutrients and micronutrients must be the same.
4) Must last for a long period of time - at least 6-12 months.

When you have that study, you will be able to get a glimpse at the practical implication of a paleo vs. non-paleo diet.

Not trying to prove anything - to anyone.

That's not surprising considering there's nothing to prove. Paleo stands on no practical, scientific foundation.

If you want to do it, go for it. I fully support your healthy eating habits. But the second you tell me that my diet which consists of whole grains/legumes/dairy is unhealthy, except for those with a clinical intolerance, is the second I expose the holes of the diet. And there are many, many holes.

And plenty with yours, so time to taken the broken record off the turntable.

Do you think before you type?

-When did I claim my diet is superior?
-When did I imply that my diet cures cancer and Parkinson's disease?
-When did I claim anything about my diet with nothing but correlations?

Do you even KNOW my diet?

Didn't think so.

Well? What is your diet?

And speaking of claims, I would like to see the scientific study showing grains are beneficial for you,,,,,,,,,,,,, compared to not eating grains.

Of the diets that really are without practical or scientific foundation, "paleo" is probably the least egregious offender. If nothing else it's still an improvement on the layperson's diet.

Least egregious as a practical matter. Following the paleo diet won't perform any of the (minor) miracles claimed, but it's better than the sugar-heavy processed calorie-laden junk that got most of us into this mess.

Hmm.. eating like every other creature on this earth does, has no scientific validity? We evolved, and survived, living off the land and sea. It led to becoming this highly intelligent, yet screwed up species destroying a planet, that is now very sick by their own doing.

You might want to look at data on asian metropolis' and note the rise in afflictions that the rural areas are not seeing. Exactly the same chain of health events that the US experienced, and continues to worsen.

"Lots of vegetables, fruits, hummus, whole grain tortillas, protein shakes, cheese, eggs. " It looks like you fall within or are very close to being within Paleo/Primal parameters.

It's clear you have no stance you stand by. And yes, the evolution of a species to dominance over a planet is science, valid science . Along with all the other species surviving and often thriving within an ecosystem that has no intelligent being screwing with it. Science is also the studies over the years on remaining hunter gather societies and their health. Even those that thrive on a lot of fat, and saturated fat on top of it. Government/Business(money) is the sheep herder. Citizens are the sheep. Do you want to eat the best you can or do you want to be a sheep putting your money in the sheep herders pocket?

Your diatribe here has served no purpose. None. What were you trying to accomplish with that paragraph of nothingness? Yeah evolution is valid, but you assume that we HAVE to eat a certain way because of it?

It's clear you have no stance you stand by. And yes, the evolution of a species to dominance over a planet is science, valid science . Along with all the other species surviving and often thriving within an ecosystem that has no intelligent being screwing with it. Science is also the studies over the years on remaining hunter gather societies and their health. Even those that thrive on a lot of fat, and saturated fat on top of it. Government/Business(money) is the sheep herder. Citizens are the sheep. Do you want to eat the best you can or do you want to be a sheep putting your money in the sheep herders pocket?

Though if you're espousing this correlational pseudo-science you should fairly note that the many thousands of years when mankind was "eating paleo" were marked by brutal and primitive behavior while it was during the post-agriculture evolution of agrarian societies that man made the greatest intellectual and technological leaps.

Guess it was due to the grains, huh?

And speaking of claims, I would like to see the scientific study showing grains are beneficial for you,,,,,,,,,,,,, compared to not eating grains.

In the interest of full disclosure I am currently eating a dinner that is mostly paleo :happy:

Wasn’t talking about any claims you made, you need to stop assuming I’m talking about you all the time

The claims and probably all the “studies” you posted are that grains help this, or help that, and usually they say something about how whole grains are good for you. All these claims are based on comparisons between a “healthy” diet including grains (again normally whole grains) and the standard diet. I will give you that. Whole grains are probably health-er than white flour. But that still does not mean they are healthy-er than a diet without grains, now does it? That is what I want to see, I want to see from YOU a study that grains, whole or otherwise, are more beneficial than a diet without grains.