Paleo Diet!
Options
Replies
-
I think what those studies are showing is that the whole grains are less bad, not that they're good for you.
Why do you think differently than the scientists?
Scientists are paid to come to a conclusion - doesn't mean the conclusion is the right one or that a real conclusion is even possible based on the methods undertaken for the study.
So, your argument is that you think all nutrition scientists are for sale? Who is buying them out?
For the epidemiological studies, do you think all the thousands of participants were paid to lie, or that the scientists were paid to fudge the answers?
Is it only nutrition science, or do you believe all scientific study results are bought and pre-formed?
They are paid off by the government, large corporations and such.
Epidemiological studies are funded and paid for my BioServices and Pharmaceutical Companies.0 -
Has anyone here tried eating the way our caveman ancestors did? How did it go for you? Did you lose weight? Did you drink milk?
Here's an article for it:
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/10/04/the-beginners-guide-to-the-paleo-diet/
Let me know what you guys think!:flowerforyou:
Having spoke w/many people who are on the paleo diet, I have to say there's some discrepancies. A lot of people use protein powder and health shakes. I laugh and say "oh...I'm sure early man had access to whey powder."
Not all of use protein shakes and such.
The majority of us choose to eat REAL food.
Now, if I have to have jaw surgery I will have to temporarily rely on protein shakes for proper nutrition, but I will make sure it is whey protein from grass fed and pastured cows.
http://www.swansonvitamins.com/health-library/products/grass-fed-whey-protein-powder.html0 -
I eat clean 80/20. Pretty much follow it, but I allow myself 3 tbsp of sugar free creamer in my coffee each morning. It's very healthy, and I still get a cheat meal a week.0
-
(No, I haven't fully dug into these yet, but I just can't stay away from this thread...(probably because of people letting me know that it's my turn to respond. Hey, people, knock it off! I'm trying to do my day-job work here. =P ))
Epidemiological studies are wonderful to identify correlations to be investigated in future studies, but can not not (IMHO) be relied on as conclusive to causation. Quick glance tells me that all three studies cited are epidemiological. For various reasons, I suspect the others you alluded to may also be epidemiological.
But let's ignore that overarching issue for a moment and look further at these studies anyhow. Aren't most/all of these studies ultimately comparing the benefits of eating *whole* grains vs. eating *refined* grains? I am not refuting that whole grains are more beneficial than refined grains (or, yes, to stay consistent with many of my paleo brethren, (although it isn't the argument that I'm making here), that whole grains are less damaging than refined grains...and to be fair, I realize that there is a subset of the paleo/primal crowd that believe this to be the other way around. Which is correct? Who knows...and I'm okay with that since I eat neither.)
What I do not see in the referenced studies, and what I believe does not exist (yet), is a comparison of a heavily grain-based diet to a no-grain diet indicating that the heavily grain-based diet is beneficial to health (and to be consistent, since it's where I started, specifically to "heart health"). And given how studies are financed/supported, it may be a while before we see those studies.
(Now, back to work...)
Alright. I concede that most of the studies that I have found have been a comparison of the whole grain diet to the rest of the population, and therefore, tend to sway to the common belief that whole grains are healthy.
However, the purpose of this is to prevent food distributors from making false claims about health. What laws require the author and publishers of the Paleo Diet book to scientifically support their claims? To the best of my knowledge, there is none. So while you can deny the science due to fallacies, you can't really support your own arguments either. This is where my issues with the Paleo Diet resides.
Awesome. And yes, I think you and I have found common ground on which we can agree (which might be an MFP forum first for you and me =P ). This conclusion is what I call the "but all the science isn't in yet" issue. And this is where my analytical side gets unhappy. As a type-a accountant-type, I like to collect all of the data and then make a reasonable decision based on that data. I like there to be one neat tidy fully supported obviously correct conclusion. But the problem is that "all of the data" just isn't available here...so we end up making conclusions based on what data is available. For me, I am comfortable that my decision to eliminate all grains from my diet, while perhaps not conclusively supported by the available research, is at least not contradicted by the available research either. For this same reason, (admittedly unlike some of my paleo friends), I just can not get fully behind the "all grains are evil for everybody period" argument. However, I am comfortable in recommending to others who struggle with certain ailments, or who complain that they have trouble fighting certain cravings, that perhaps grains may be a problem for them, or at least counter to their current goals.
Oh, and to be clear, I did not fall into the paleo/primal way of eating from a book. I was essentially paleo/primal for a month before I even knew that's what it was called. I went searching for the name of the diet I had adopted instead of adopting a diet based on what I had researched.0 -
You are not speaking the truth. You are telling outright lies that are simply your opinion. If I have any addiction issues, other than nicotine, it's the inability to let people get away with lying. I have to call them out. Sorry if you the truth hurts.
I don't consider paleo "restrictive," so much as I consider it retarded. (my opinion) You are no different than a KKK member, pretending that somehow you are better than others because you make different choices in life. Or a Westboro Baptist member claiming that everyone who thinks differently is going to burn in hell. Please get off your high horse and realize that everyone has free will to make choices in life, including what we put in our own bodies. Your little word games with the definition of words serves no purpose other than to make you feel superior to others. If that's your head-trip, your "addiction," to feel smug and superior, then more power to ya, but don't sit around wondering why people don't like you.
Your statements serve to prove my point. There is no point in debating someone so blind, so I am through with you and this thread.
I fail to see how you differ, through your actions and comments, from anything you just claimed these other people to be...0 -
I think what those studies are showing is that the whole grains are less bad, not that they're good for you.
Why do you think differently than the scientists?
Scientists are paid to come to a conclusion - doesn't mean the conclusion is the right one or that a real conclusion is even possible based on the methods undertaken for the study.
So, your argument is that you think all nutrition scientists are for sale? Who is buying them out?
For the epidemiological studies, do you think all the thousands of participants were paid to lie, or that the scientists were paid to fudge the answers?
Is it only nutrition science, or do you believe all scientific study results are bought and pre-formed?
They are paid off by the government, large corporations and such.
Epidemiological studies are funded and paid for my BioServices and Pharmaceutical Companies.
What is the source of this information?0 -
Shes left the thread,after comparing clean eaters to the KKK. Dont argue with her,seriously.0
-
I think what those studies are showing is that the whole grains are less bad, not that they're good for you.
Why do you think differently than the scientists?
Scientists are paid to come to a conclusion - doesn't mean the conclusion is the right one or that a real conclusion is even possible based on the methods undertaken for the study.
So, your argument is that you think all nutrition scientists are for sale? Who is buying them out?
For the epidemiological studies, do you think all the thousands of participants were paid to lie, or that the scientists were paid to fudge the answers?
Is it only nutrition science, or do you believe all scientific study results are bought and pre-formed?
I'm not even saying they are making biased conclusions or being bought out. But they do need to come to a conclusion at the end of the study and what I'm saying is they don't have enough information to come to a conclusion but do so anyhow.
The studies themselves are incredibly flawed in that they pin whole-grain eaters against the rest of the population. Clearly, whole-grain eaters will win out. It doesn't mean that whole grains are healthy. It means that people who eat whole-grains live healthier lifestyles than the rest of the population (again, I could tell you that without a study).
It comes down to causation/correlation, and to me there is no proof there whatsoever that whole-grains are the cause of a lower risk of CVD.
It's like asking women if they shop at Lululemon and analyzing their risk of CVD and then coming to the conclusion that shopping at Lululemon lowers ones risk of CVD because their shoppers has a lowered risk.
Well, if you expect any one study to yield proof postive results, and discount any that doesn't. Then I can see why you think the way you do, because science simply doesn't work that way. Every study has results.
It is by looking at the results from all data available (multiple studies and reviews of the studies) that recommendations are formed. But to suggest that everyone conducting every study and everyone that subsequently reviews the study and it's findings is either wrong or making up a conculusion simply because they need to seems beyone silly to me.
But even if there were proof positive science that whole grains do not lower one[s risk of heart disease, why is that a reason to cut them from your diet?0 -
Shes left the thread,after comparing clean eaters to the KKK. Dont argue with her,seriously.
lmao, I really don't like getting on here to argue with people, and I try not to.... but in her case (and after all the incredibly outrageous statements and claims she made toward me and my friends on here...) I just couldn't help myself.
0 -
Awesome. And yes, I think you and I have found common ground on which we can agree (which might be an MFP forum first for you and me =P ). This conclusion is what I call the "but all the science isn't in yet" issue. And this is where my analytical side gets unhappy. As a type-a accountant-type, I like to collect all of the data and then make a reasonable decision based on that data. I like there to be one neat tidy fully supported obviously correct conclusion. But the problem is that "all of the data" just isn't available here...so we end up making conclusions based on what data is available. For me, I am comfortable that my decision to eliminate all grains from my diet, while perhaps not conclusively supported by the available research, is at least not contradicted by the available research either. For this same reason, (admittedly unlike some of my paleo friends), I just can not get fully behind the "all grains are evil for everybody period" argument. However, I am comfortable in recommending to others who struggle with certain ailments, or who complain that they have trouble fighting certain cravings, that perhaps grains may be a problem for them, or at least counter to their current goals.
Oh, and to be clear, I did not fall into the paleo/primal way of eating from a book. I was essentially paleo/primal for a month before I even knew that's what it was called. I went searching for the name of the diet I had adopted instead of adopting a diet based on what I had researched.
Well I can certainly see that there are benefits for some who pursue this approach. Obviously, the Paleo Diet is ideal for anyone with a gluten allergy. My primary concern is that actual claim that grains are the root cause of obesity in America. It's just simply not true. There are a tremendous number of factors that have led to the rise in obesity in America. Processed grains have truly only played a small role.
I've enjoyed our conversation, but I believe I will bow out of the thread on this note. Thanks for an interesting and informative debate! :happy:0 -
But let's ignore that overarching issue for a moment and look further at these studies anyhow. Aren't most/all of these studies ultimately comparing the benefits of eating *whole* grains vs. eating *refined* grains?
No, they are not.0 -
But let's ignore that overarching issue for a moment and look further at these studies anyhow. Aren't most/all of these studies ultimately comparing the benefits of eating *whole* grains vs. eating *refined* grains?
No, they are not.
Then I don't see how they could have controlled for other diet factors besides whole grains. And as a result, other confounding factors are clearly in play. I'm standing by my position that epidemiological studies do not/can not establish causation...(but they aren't designed for that purpose either). They are the genesis of further studies that *do* and *can* establish causation. One day, these studies will be conducted...but I do not believe that day has arrived yet.
I am completely comfortable that my diet differs significantly from the average person's diet who just happens not to eat grains. I am also comfortable that the relative healthiness of my diet also differs.0 -
Awesome. And yes, I think you and I have found common ground on which we can agree (which might be an MFP forum first for you and me =P ). This conclusion is what I call the "but all the science isn't in yet" issue. And this is where my analytical side gets unhappy. As a type-a accountant-type, I like to collect all of the data and then make a reasonable decision based on that data. I like there to be one neat tidy fully supported obviously correct conclusion. But the problem is that "all of the data" just isn't available here...so we end up making conclusions based on what data is available. For me, I am comfortable that my decision to eliminate all grains from my diet, while perhaps not conclusively supported by the available research, is at least not contradicted by the available research either. For this same reason, (admittedly unlike some of my paleo friends), I just can not get fully behind the "all grains are evil for everybody period" argument. However, I am comfortable in recommending to others who struggle with certain ailments, or who complain that they have trouble fighting certain cravings, that perhaps grains may be a problem for them, or at least counter to their current goals.
Oh, and to be clear, I did not fall into the paleo/primal way of eating from a book. I was essentially paleo/primal for a month before I even knew that's what it was called. I went searching for the name of the diet I had adopted instead of adopting a diet based on what I had researched.
Well I can certainly see that there are benefits for some who pursue this approach. Obviously, the Paleo Diet is ideal for anyone with a gluten allergy. My primary concern is that actual claim that grains are the root cause of obesity in America. It's just simply not true. There are a tremendous number of factors that have led to the rise in obesity in America. Processed grains have truly only played a small role.
I've enjoyed our conversation, but I believe I will bow out of the thread on this note. Thanks for an interesting and informative debate! :happy:
While I am less convinced that it is completely irrelevant, honestly, I don't know how big of a role (if any) increased grain consumption has had on the obesity problem. It would not shock me if we ultimately determine they played a significant role...but it also wouldn't shock me if we ultimately determine that they play almost no role.
Indeed, a rare forum discussion between two MFPers with opposing views. :happy:
I'd like to say that I'm going to bow out of this thread too, but I'm sure I'll get pulled back into it. Meanwhile, best of luck to you on the rest of your journey. I'm sure we'll run into each other again in a future forum post.
0 -
wow, some ppeople sure get bent out of shape over stuff.
I want too try Paleo -for couple of weeks, for the sake of trying it- seeing if there is anything to glean from of for me specifically. maybe so. maybe not. not a big deal either way.
And I need to reduce my banana consumpion. I keep forgetting it is a common migraine trigger. I don't always notice it, but have been having more of both lately.0 -
wow, some ppeople sure get bent out of shape over stuff.
I want too try Paleo -for couple of weeks, for the sake of trying it- seeing if there is anything to glean from of for me specifically. maybe so. maybe not. not a big deal either way.
And I need to reduce my banana consumpion. I keep forgetting it is a common migraine trigger. I don't always notice it, but have been having more of both lately.
(I like to think of it more as "people sure are passionate about what they believe"...but you're probably more right.)
Fortunately, there are an incredible number of easily-available resources to help with your n=1 experiment...(whole9life.com, robbwolf.com, bulletproofexec.com, marksdailyapple.com, etc.) Good luck.0 -
But let's ignore that overarching issue for a moment and look further at these studies anyhow. Aren't most/all of these studies ultimately comparing the benefits of eating *whole* grains vs. eating *refined* grains?
No, they are not.
Then I don't see how they could have controlled for other diet factors besides whole grains. And as a result, other confounding factors are clearly in play. I'm standing by my position that epidemiological studies do not/can not establish causation...(but they aren't designed for that purpose either). They are the genesis of further studies that *do* and *can* establish causation. One day, these studies will be conducted...but I do not believe that day has arrived yet.
I agree that epidemiological studies do not/can not establish causation. But they also do not eliminate causation. Nor does a controlled study establish causation. There would have to many studies with similar results to establish causation.
I'm not convinced studies will ever be conducted that will prove without a doubt that whole grains do or do not have an association with reduced CVD risk because the studies would have to be very long term. And in past long term studies where diets were compared, most subjects did not stick to the diets as they were instructed.
But since there have been multiple epidemiological studies showing that people that eat whole grains have reduced incidence of heart disease, diabetes, stroke and other diseases, I choose to be one of those people. Conclusive science? No. Good science? Yes.
More than 2 decades of a diet rich in addictive whole grains and 5 decades of eating poisonous legumes for me and so far, so good.0 -
But let's ignore that overarching issue for a moment and look further at these studies anyhow. Aren't most/all of these studies ultimately comparing the benefits of eating *whole* grains vs. eating *refined* grains?
No, they are not.
Then I don't see how they could have controlled for other diet factors besides whole grains. And as a result, other confounding factors are clearly in play. I'm standing by my position that epidemiological studies do not/can not establish causation...(but they aren't designed for that purpose either). They are the genesis of further studies that *do* and *can* establish causation. One day, these studies will be conducted...but I do not believe that day has arrived yet.
But since there have been multiple epidemiological studies showing that people that eat whole grains have reduced incidence of heart disease, diabetes, stroke and other diseases, I choose to be one of those people. Conclusive science? No. Good science? Yes.
Is it good science because it is a stance that you agree and confirms your current beliefs?0 -
But let's ignore that overarching issue for a moment and look further at these studies anyhow. Aren't most/all of these studies ultimately comparing the benefits of eating *whole* grains vs. eating *refined* grains?
No, they are not.
Then I don't see how they could have controlled for other diet factors besides whole grains. And as a result, other confounding factors are clearly in play. I'm standing by my position that epidemiological studies do not/can not establish causation...(but they aren't designed for that purpose either). They are the genesis of further studies that *do* and *can* establish causation. One day, these studies will be conducted...but I do not believe that day has arrived yet.
But since there have been multiple epidemiological studies showing that people that eat whole grains have reduced incidence of heart disease, diabetes, stroke and other diseases, I choose to be one of those people. Conclusive science? No. Good science? Yes.
Is it good science because it is a stance that you agree and confirms your current beliefs?
No, it's good science because it provides valuable scientific data. And actually, it didn't so much confirm my beliefts as form them. Although, all subsequent studies that I've seen have confirmed them, I would be more than willing to read a study that conflicted with them. I would judge whether I considered the confilcting results good science by who conducted it and what the peer reviewers had to say.
For example, I eat and/or drink soy almost daily. I started doing so after reading a couple of studies showing health benefits. But, there have been subsequent conflicting study results and I consider most of the information valuable. Maybe it's contributing to my health and maybe not. But I've been consuming it regularly long enough to believe it's not doing me harm. Hopefully I'm right.0 -
But let's ignore that overarching issue for a moment and look further at these studies anyhow. Aren't most/all of these studies ultimately comparing the benefits of eating *whole* grains vs. eating *refined* grains?
No, they are not.
Then I don't see how they could have controlled for other diet factors besides whole grains. And as a result, other confounding factors are clearly in play. I'm standing by my position that epidemiological studies do not/can not establish causation...(but they aren't designed for that purpose either). They are the genesis of further studies that *do* and *can* establish causation. One day, these studies will be conducted...but I do not believe that day has arrived yet.
But since there have been multiple epidemiological studies showing that people that eat whole grains have reduced incidence of heart disease, diabetes, stroke and other diseases, I choose to be one of those people. Conclusive science? No. Good science? Yes.
Is it good science because it is a stance that you agree and confirms your current beliefs?
No, it's good science because it provides valuable scientific data. And actually, it didn't so much confirm my beliefts as form them. Although, all subsequent studies that I've seen have confirmed them, I would be more than willing to read a study that conflicted with them. I would judge whether I considered the confilcting results good science by who conducted it and what the peer reviewers had to say.
For example, I eat and/or drink soy almost daily. I started doing so after reading a couple of studies showing health benefits. But, there have been subsequent conflicting study results and I consider most of the information valuable. Maybe it's contributing to my health and maybe not. But I've been consuming it regularly long enough to believe it's not doing me harm. Hopefully I'm right.
What do you think of the perception that whole grains are healthy/healthier, therefore people who already are pretty health conscious choose to eat more whole grains, and thus have better health outcomes, not because of whole grains but their lifestyle choices that whole grains may play a small role in or none at all0 -
Read more about it, don't let the idea go and don't let other people talk you out of it because I guarantee they haven't given it a real chance. Read the research, the science behind it and the see the results for yourself.
My results - I lost all of my weight (39 lbs), decreased my overall cholesterol, and reduced my thyroid meds all within 6 months time. I eat 60% fat (including full-fat dairy), 25% protein (strength training) and 15% carbs from veggies and fruit.
Grok on!
Similar here. Overall, feel much better, and GERD almost completely gone. Lost all 30 pounds I wanted to lose in six months. Since then, have spent the past six months intentionally adding mostly lean mass (and am currently up around 14 pounds. I think my current ratios are around 60%F/20%P/20%C.
A major downside is that there are people out there who are very emotionally against the idea. They themselves usually claim that they believe it is too restrictive and that they could never give up their breads. (And many of these people will do whatever they can to convince you of the error of your ways.) My counter is that by completely giving up certain foods, I no longer crave them...or said another way, I have broken my addiction to certain foods. It is very liberating and makes it so much easier to make good, intentional dietary decisions. In other words, the more I stay "on plan", the easier it is to stay "on plan".
If you do decide to pursue it further, there are a lot of resources on the internet to help you. (whole9.org has a very helpful "induction phase" program that you may find helpful.)
EDIT: because grammar matters
Tried going to your link "whole9.org", it doesn't take you to any web page. You might want to check that out before posting.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions