The Validity of Paleolithic Nutrition

[MrMisanthrope]

This thread is to house an ongoing debate between myself and anyone about the validity of all facets of the so-called "paleolithic diet" as defined loosely by the findings of Weston Price and Vilhjalmur Stefansson. The diet is comprised almost entirely of the flesh, skin, marrow and organs of wild-caught seafood, animals from a wild condition (grass fed, free roaming, etcetera), and a minimal vegetable component comprised mainly of root vegetables, the soft shoots of freshly sprouted plants and some other readily harvestable plant goods.

Let the debate begin.

[JohnBrowne]

Zero validity.

[MrMisanthrope]

Zero validity.

Sir, I accept your challenge. Tell me what you disagree with about paleolithic dieting and I will answer you.

[lolmuscle129]

Zero validity.
idk why people on this forum hate on paleo so much. I hear some complaining about the paleo dieters having an "elitist" attitude but I think it's just as bad that the people on this forum have an attitude that is just as bad refusing to even hear it out.

[mannydawg]

circumstantial evidence is all you have which will not prove the superiority of a paleolithic diet compared to any other diet

if it works for you then by all means eat in that manner no one is telling you not to do so.

[MrMisanthrope]

idk why people on this forum hate on paleo so much. I hear some complaining about the paleo dieters having an "elitist" attitude but I think it's just as bad that the people on this forum have an attitude that is just as bad refusing to even hear it out.

I think it's strange too. I admit paleo dieting sounds extreme because it tends to be so anti-modernist. Until you get used to the idea, it sounds like something you'd expect to be done by some kind of cult out in the woods somewhere.

In terms of macronutrients, it's identical to ketogenic dieting - something this website has a whole subforum for. The only difference is the advocated source of these nutrients, and claims about the importance of certain micronutrients and their densities in different foods.

[MrMisanthrope]

circumstantial evidence is all you have which will not prove the superiority of a paleolithic diet compared to any other diet.

I'll answer this.

What do you mean exactly by "circumstantial evidence?"
In what terms am I supposed to prove that the paleolithic diet is "superior" to other diets? What is it that it allegedly does that other diets do not do?

[mannydawg]

I'll answer this.

What do you mean exactly by "circumstantial evidence?"
In what terms am I supposed to prove that the paleolithic diet is "superior" to other diets? What is it that it allegedly does that other diets do not do?

you said grains were satan which can be interpreted as if you were saying people who eat grains have an inferior diet. Which is why i said to prove why that was?

[lolmuscle129]

i really like the idea of the diet the only thing is that i eat out too much for me to be able to do it. I actually thought of an idea for this type of diet years ago before I ever came to find out about "paleo".

[alan aragon]

Sir, I accept your challenge. Tell me what you disagree with about paleolithic dieting and I will answer you.The burden of proof is on the guy making the bold claims (you), not the person questioning the claims. As evidenced in the thread that started this (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=133022213), you have thus far failed to shoulder the burden of proof & sufficiently support your claims.

[lolmuscle129]

I think it's strange too. I admit paleo dieting sounds extreme because it tends to be so anti-modernist. Until you get used to the idea, it sounds like something you'd expect to be done by some kind of cult out in the woods somewhere.

In terms of macronutrients, it's identical to ketogenic dieting - something this website has a whole subforum for. The only difference is the advocated source of these nutrients, and claims about the importance of certain micronutrients and their densities in different foods.
correct me if I'm wrong but the one major difference between keto and paleo dieting would be that paleo diets include fruits therefore a person on a paleo diet would not get into a "ketogenic state".

[MrMisanthrope]

Evolution & nutrition differ in that nutritional effects are more readily open to experimental investigation (& thus demonstration of cause-and-effect). Conflating the two areas of study in attempt to form an argument is invalid from the start. The best we can currently do in terms of recommending a diet that's optimal for promoting health & preventing disease is draw upon what we have seen to converge in both observational & interventional research, with an emphasis on the latter, since it's subject to less validity threats. The preponderance of data in BOTH of these lines of evidence do not support your stance. And to reiterate my prior assertion (because it's easy to miss but very important), all of your argument is still speculation-based & your points are irrelevant within the context of nonsedentary populations whose macronutrient targets are not idiotically set-up.

This constitutes a problem, because although nutritional science is advancing, so are diabetes, obesity and other chronic diseases. I agree wholeheartedly with your emphasis on empirical results, but I have a hard time believing in the conventions of today. I admit that this is not scientific evidence, but I am an aspiring physician. In the process of acquiring clinical experience, I've run into plenty of people - in some populations, horrifying frequencies in excess of 60% - who are doing everything "right" by convention (FDA food pyramid and jogging) and yet are diabetic and thoroughly breaking down. It appears our disagreement is entomological in a sense - I take knowledge of human evolution to be satisfactory "natural endorsement" of a lifestyle, while you do not and would prefer more science. I can understand and respect that.

Clearly, more experimentation is needed. In regards to interventional treatment, in every population from Eskimo to Ache that eats the way I would have them eat, no interventional research seems possible because there is no disease to speak of. I would however like to inform you that Weston Price documents folk remedy interventions of different conditions in primitive settings: the onset of vitamin A deficiency symptoms is treated by the consumption of fish eyes, the onset of scurvy by consumption of moose adrenal gland, infertility is treated by the consumption of fish roe, etcetera. Price's team apparently undertook the chemical analysis of these animal parts and found that each of them is high in precisely the nutrients whose deficiency caused the undesirable symptoms. I'm attempting to track down more detailed chemical analysis notes currently, but it is clear that this is no mythology - there is clear cut documentation of both the curative properties of many micronutrients and of their bioaccumulation in pristine food webs, such that the organs and glandular tissues of animals that a human might eat happen to be high in precisely what humans would need. I can produce more info on this if needed.


In the order you listed them...

Study 1: This review highlights the study by Jönsson et al, but fails to mention the critical limitation: a neglect for matching macronutrition between treatments.

Study 2: Again, they neglected to match macronutrition between the treatments. The Paleo diet treatment was lower in carbohydrate & total kcals than the non-Paleo treatment. Really, would you doubt that a diet with appx 300 kcals less (almost exclusively from carb reduction) would yield better results in sedentary, overweight/obese type 2 diabetics?

Ultimately, attributing positive results to the exclusion of "non-Paleo" foods is impossible without matching macronutrition between treatments. This is what the Paleo proponents consistently fail to recognize whenever they cite Paleo research.

I'll get back to study 1 when I can review it form a school IP.

As for study two, well, that's the point. The general theory is that ketosis cures or improves diabetes. Tweaking macronutrient levels is the entire point of study, although rather than seek to cure the problem through macronutrient changes alone it seeks to see if the already established diet might have more desirable macronutritient balances. It's not as if paleo diet + candy to match macronutritient levels would have been a valid study of paleolithic dieting.

[bandit1990]

Few things i picked up at a convention today:
There is little scientific evidence backing up things such as the food pyramid.
The reason that numerous studies support these things ( like the food pyramid ) is because of the source of funding. Government and drug corporations are the main sources of money for these studies. These corporations profit from sickness so they of course want people to get sick, this happens due to lifestyle choices of misinformed people. (look it up)

Humans were never meant to eat grains or dairy ect... we are the only animal that drinks the milk of other animals (weird).

Before you judge, i drink milk and i eat bread. Im just saying that people have huge misconceptions about the topic at hand.

[Youlovesperm]

"Where's your scientific proof that your satiating, nutritious low carb diet is better than me religiously counting calories and macronutrients to achieve the near exact same thing without being as satiated?" - Every anti-paleo guy ever.

[MrMisanthrope]

correct me if I'm wrong but the one major difference between keto and paleo dieting would be that paleo diets include fruits therefore a person on a paleo diet would not get into a "ketogenic state".

That's not correct. In ice age Europe, reliable vegetable and fruit sources were not common. The paleolithic diet I advocate is a diet of entirely meat.

[lolmuscle129]

That's not correct. In ice age Europe, reliable vegetable and fruit sources were not common. The paleolithic diet I advocate is a diet of entirely meat.
I'm under the impression though that most paleo dieters advocate a diet that includes plenty of vegetables and some fruits.

I would personally have to greatly disagree with the health of eating a diet consisting entirly of meat.

[MrMisanthrope]

The burden of proof is on the guy making the bold claims (you), not the person questioning the claims. As evidenced in the thread that started this (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=133022213), you have thus far failed to shoulder the burden of proof & sufficiently support your claims.

I have to cite only two sources to prove most of my claims. These sources are quite extensive.

1: Weston A. Price, "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration," 1939.

Orthodontist Weston A. Price launches a global survey of nutrition, comparing primitive groups to modern groups, comparing general health, facial bone formation and disease prevalence with the presence of naturally occurring high fat foods chiefly from animal sources. His findings clearly show a strong correlation - people who eat a fat/meat heavy diet have nearly no disease and almost zero tooth decay (fractions of a percent of all teeth surveyed in most groups, including exhumed skulls). People who eat modern western diets have facial deformities, crooked teeth, tuberculosis, diabetes, heart issues and a host of other degenerative problems.

2: W.S. McClellan, E.F. DuBois, "Clinical Calorimetry XLV: Prolonged Meat Diets With a Study of Kidney Function and Ketosis," 1930.

Summary from McClellan & DuBois:

1. Two men lived on an exclusive meat diet for one year, and another for 10 days. The relative amounts of lean and fat meat ingested were left to the instinctive choice of the individual.
2. The protein content varied from 100 to 140 grams, the fat from 200 to 300 grams, the carbohydrates (derived entirely from the meat) from 7 to 12 grams, and the fuel value from 2000 to 3100 calories.
3. At the end of the year, the subjects were mentally alert, physically active, and showed no specific physical changes in any system of the body.
4. In the prolonged test, the blood pressure of one man remained constant, the systolic pressure of the other decreased 20 mm and the diastolic remained constant.
5. Vitamin deficiencies did not appear.
6. Kidney function revealed no damage.
7. In these subjects, the clinical observations and laboratory studies gave no evidence that any ill effects had occurred from the prolonged use of the exclusive meat diet.

Those two statements right there prove almost everything I would need to prove, other than that grass fed and wild meats are the only meats that contain vitamins and minerals on the levels I assert are necessary - things I have sources lined up and ready to prove.

[MrMisanthrope]

I'm under the impression though that most paleo dieters advocate a diet that includes plenty of vegetables and some fruits.

I would personally have to greatly disagree with the health of eating a diet consisting entirly of meat.

See McClellan and DuBois paper.

[mannydawg]

I have to cite only two sources to prove most of my claims. These sources are quite extensive.

1: Weston A. Price, "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration," 1939.

Orthodontist Weston A. Price launches a global survey of nutrition, comparing primitive groups to modern groups, comparing general health, facial bone formation and disease prevalence with the presence of naturally occurring high fat foods chiefly from animal sources. His findings clearly show a strong correlation - people who eat a fat/meat heavy diet have nearly no disease and almost zero tooth decay (fractions of a percent of all teeth surveyed in most groups, including exhumed skulls). People who eat modern western diets have facial deformities, crooked teeth, tuberculosis, diabetes, heart issues and a host of other degenerative problems.

2: W.S. McClellan, E.F. DuBois, "Clinical Calorimetry XLV: Prolonged Meat Diets With a Study of Kidney Function and Ketosis," 1930.

Summary from McClellan & DuBois:

1. Two men lived on an exclusive meat diet for one year, and another for 10 days. The relative amounts of lean and fat meat ingested were left to the instinctive choice of the individual.
2. The protein content varied from 100 to 140 grams, the fat from 200 to 300 grams, the carbohydrates (derived entirely from the meat) from 7 to 12 grams, and the fuel value from 2000 to 3100 calories.
3. At the end of the year, the subjects were mentally alert, physically active, and showed no specific physical changes in any system of the body.
4. In the prolonged test, the blood pressure of one man remained constant, the systolic pressure of the other decreased 20 mm and the diastolic remained constant.
5. Vitamin deficiencies did not appear.
6. Kidney function revealed no damage.
7. In these subjects, the clinical observations and laboratory studies gave no evidence that any ill effects had occurred from the prolonged use of the exclusive meat diet.

Those two statements right there prove almost everything I would need to prove, other than that grass fed and wild meats are the only meats that contain vitamins and minerals on the levels I assert are necessary - things I have sources lined up and ready to prove.

is this 1940? 70 years have passed since those studies which to me is way to much time to take them seriously. Now if you can provide a study that isn't ancient your claims may be more valid. Again I emphasize "more" because they are still invalid.

[alan aragon]

You cannot "prove" anything - especially with the speculative, uncontrolled/observational evidence you bring to the table. You repeatedly make bold claims about the superiority of the Paleo diet, I showed you how your evidence falls short of supporting those claims. Now I'm finding out that you're taking things to yet another degree of zealotry (an all-meat diet). You are quite deeply lost in your own fairy tale.

[MrMisanthrope]

is this 1940? 70 years have passed since those studies which to me is way to much time to take them seriously. Now if you can provide a study that isn't ancient your claims may be more valid.

New studies are constantly being done on paleolithic nutrition. Unfortunately nobody has sought to repeat McClellan & DuBois that I have heard of in recent years. Meanwhile, Charles Darwin is still valid despite the passage of many years, as are Mendel and Galileo. I call fallacy - what was true 50, 100, or even 5,000 years ago is still true today. However, because of the way people react to nutritional studies, I'll see if I can't find something more recent. I was recently referred to a nutritional professor on campus who is very reputable, he may have something for me.

[mannydawg]

You cannot "prove" anything - especially with the speculative, uncontrolled/observational evidence you bring to the table. You repeatedly make bold claims about the superiority of the Paleo diet, I showed you how your evidence falls short of supporting those claims. Now I'm finding out that you're taking things to yet another degree of zealotry (an all-meat diet). You are quite deeply lost in your own fairy tale.

he thinks this is 1940 thats probably why. lol

[lolmuscle129]

See McClellan and DuBois paper.
were the people in this study eating standard meat parts? or were they also eating organs?

also this study is from the 1930s and includes 2 subjects.

[mannydawg]

New studies are constantly being done on paleolithic nutrition. Unfortunately nobody has sought to repeat McClellan & DuBois that I have heard of in recent years. Meanwhile, Charles Darwin is still valid despite the passage of many years, as are Mendel and Galileo. I call fallacy - what was true 50, 100, or even 5,000 years ago is still true today. However, because of the way people react to nutritional studies, I'll see if I can't find something more recent. I was recently referred to a nutritional professor on campus who is very reputable, he may have something for me.

but darwin, mendel, and galileo's theories have been repeatedly replicated and or expanded upon which is why they are still relevant

[mannydawg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet

tempted to neg for random pointless post

[lolmuscle129]

tempted to neg for random pointless post
this

[mannydawg]

this

ha ha ha post was deleted.

[MrMisanthrope]

You cannot "prove" anything - especially with the speculative, uncontrolled/observational evidence you bring to the table. You repeatedly make bold claims about the superiority of the Paleo diet, I showed you how your evidence falls short of supporting those claims. Now I'm finding out that you're taking things to yet another degree of zealotry (an all-meat diet). You are quite deeply lost in your own fairy tale.

I just showed you several hundred pages' worth of evidence that an all meat diet is completely healthy. However, my own extraneous research shows that this is contingent upon the diet of the meat animals. Regular store meat isn't going to cut it, you need free ranged animals or else the tissues of the animals will be devoid of all useful nutrients; you would rapidly develop nutrient deficiencies attempting my proposed diet with meat of inadequate quality.

My evidence supports this claim entirely. If you would like, I could go to my host of sources discussing the nutrient density of grass fed free range beef vs. grain fed feedlot beef to help make this point.

Really, it's no different than everything the ketosis forum discusses - fat and protein as your macros, acquire extraneous vitamins and minerals from capsules or non-starchy vegetables. The difference is that correctly fed animals already have those nutrients in them, making extraneous supplementation unnecessary. All nutrients can be derived directly from the fat and organs, as clearly shown in McClellan and DuBois.

Here:
http://www.eatwild.com/healthbenefits.htm

This page cites its own primary literature, so I don't feel compelled to extract each primary source for the appearance of my own validity. I could, but it'd just be half hearted plagiarism.

Synopsis of this page:
Grass fed beef was found to be lower in total fat per unit mass and far higher in omega 3 fatty acids per unit mass. The unprocessed milk from these cows was found to be extremely high in conjugated linoleic acid, something that appears to be potent at preventing cancer. Grass fed beef was very high in vitamin E, higher in thiamin and riboflavin, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and lower in total saturated fats. Eggs from pastured chickens were found to be richer in vitamins A and D, B12 and folic acid. Butter from grass fed cows had much more beta carotene, vitamin E, conjugated linoleic acid and omega 3 fatty acids.

I actually got sick of summarizing benefits, and only got about half way down that page. The numbers are all sourced from published primary literature on the site.

Needless to say, I remain convinced. I have been happily and healthily eating a diet of almost entirely meat for at least two years.

[MrMisanthrope]

were the people in this study eating standard meat parts? or were they also eating organs?

also this study is from the 1930s and includes 2 subjects.

They were most definitely eating organs, fat, skin, eyes, entrails etcetera. They ate the entire animal. The whole theory is that organ and glandular tissues are the site of accumulation of many important nutrients. Price documented tribes of hunters that would throw the muscle meat to the dogs and save only the organs of their kills.

They taste pretty good too. I'm about to go buy some grass fed kidneys with adrenal glands still attached (vitamin C rich) and cook them up. I'm hoping to refine the recipe until it's a classy little salad type dish.

[lolmuscle129]

They were most definitely eating organs, fat, skin, eyes, entrails etcetera. They ate the entire animal. The whole theory is that organ and glandular tissues are the site of accumulation of many important nutrients. Price documented tribes of hunters that would throw the muscle meat to the dogs and save only the organs of their kills.

They taste pretty good too. I'm about to go buy some grass fed kidneys with adrenal glands still attached (vitamin C rich) and cook them up. I'm hoping to refine the recipe until it's a classy little salad type dish.
okay I can understand this diet if it includes organ meats. Sounds intriguing but I believe from what I've read it's not practical/healthy to eat organ meats on a regular basis. I don't recall what the reasoning was though.

[mannydawg]

I just showed you several hundred pages' worth of evidence that an all meat diet is completely healthy. However, my own extraneous research shows that this is contingent upon the diet of the meat animals. Regular store meat isn't going to cut it, you need free ranged animals or else the tissues of the animals will be devoid of all useful nutrients; you would rapidly develop nutrient deficiencies attempting my proposed diet with meat of inadequate quality.

My evidence supports this claim entirely. If you would like, I could go to my host of sources discussing the nutrient density of grass fed free range beef vs. grain fed feedlot beef to help make this point.

Really, it's no different than everything the ketosis forum discusses - fat and protein as your macros, acquire extraneous vitamins and minerals from capsules or non-starchy vegetables. The difference is that correctly fed animals already have those nutrients in them, making extraneous supplementation unnecessary. All nutrients can be derived directly from the fat and organs, as clearly shown in McClellan and DuBois.

Here:
http://www.eatwild.com/healthbenefits.htm

This page cites its own primary literature, so I don't feel compelled to extract each primary source for the appearance of my own validity. I could, but it'd just be half hearted plagiarism.

Synopsis of this page:
Grass fed beef was found to be lower in total fat per unit mass and far higher in omega 3 fatty acids per unit mass. The unprocessed milk from these cows was found to be extremely high in conjugated linoleic acid, something that appears to be potent at preventing cancer. Grass fed beef was very high in vitamin E, higher in thiamin and riboflavin, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and lower in total saturated fats. Eggs from pastured chickens were found to be richer in vitamins A and D, B12 and folic acid. Butter from grass fed cows had much more beta carotene, vitamin E, conjugated linoleic acid and omega 3 fatty acids.

I actually got sick of summarizing benefits, and only got about half way down that page. The numbers are all sourced from published primary literature on the site.

Needless to say, I remain convinced. I have been happily and healthily eating a diet of almost entirely meat for at least two years.

I believe your own intelligence is actually doing harm to you. Yes you can prove grass fed meat is superior to grain fed meat but I ask how does this prove any of the bold statements that you made about paleolithic eating? And again like Alan said your lost in your own fairy tale and stay lost by all means but don't preach your nonsense on here.

[mannydawg]

okay I can understand this diet if it includes organ meats. Sounds intriguing but I believe from what I've read it's not practical/healthy to eat organ meats on a regular basis. I don't recall what the reasoning was though.

Vitamin A toxicity from eating too much liver is one

[MrMisanthrope]

okay I can understand this diet if it includes organ meats. Sounds intriguing but I believe from what I've read it's not practical/healthy to eat organ meats on a regular basis. I don't recall what the reasoning was though.

Glad to see reasonable people with open minds. I'll continually post new info on this thread as I find it, maybe some of it will end up being useful to you and others.

I will say that not all organs can be eaten; bioaccumulation of fat soluble nutrients is exponentional. Each trophic level has exponentionally more density of a given fat soluble compound than the level below it, so while some ungulate livers and organs can be eaten, bear liver and organs can give toxic overdoses of certain vitamins. There are also diseases to be watched for in the consumption of some animal organs as well.

You're right, it definitely carries its risks.

[MrMisanthrope]

I believe your own intelligence is actually doing harm to you. Yes you can prove grass fed meat is superior to grain fed meat but I ask how does this prove any of the bold statements that you made about paleolithic eating? And again like Alan said your lost in your own fairy tale and stay lost by all means but don't preach your nonsense on here.

Sir, I've yet to see a reason to doubt anything I believe. I won't stoop to name calling or harsh language. Until convincing counterevidence is posted by somebody, I'm going to come in here every day and use this thread as an infodump for useful paleo information.

Hell, I'll even help - go to pubmed and start looking for things about fat or the negative health effects of meat. I recommend going to vegetarian or vegan forums to seek their advice; they have potent anti-meat information that I would love the chance to test myself against.

[mynameisuntz]

Still nothing that concludes grains have a negative net effect on humans, I see?

[alan aragon]

MrMisanthrope, you can cling to your Weston Price Manifesto and 2-subject observational study. I'm sure you'll be just fine.

For anyone interested in a more scientifically valid (& less myopic) view of the evidence on eating for optimal health & longevity, here's some reading, but first a quote:

"Regardless of scientific approach, there is a remarkable convergence of evidence: Certain aspects of diets improve health and prevent disease, particularly CVD. Whether by factor analysis, as done by Heidemann et al, by scoring systems for specific diets, or by qualitative description of diets consumed by informative populations, dietary patterns associated with longevity emphasize fruits and vegetables and are reduced in saturated fat, meats, refined grains, sweets, and full-fat dairy products. Equally notable is the wide variation in other aspects of healthy diets, particularly macronutrient intake. Traditional Okinawan diets provide 90% of calories from carbohydrate (predominantly from vegetables), whereas the traditional Mediterranean diet provides >40% of calories from fat, mostly monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat."

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/118/3/214

According to the OP, populations in the Blue Zones (regions of the world where people commonly live active lives past the age of 100 years) are doing it wrong.

[lolmuscle129]

I believe your own intelligence is actually doing harm to you. Yes you can prove grass fed meat is superior to grain fed meat but I ask how does this prove any of the bold statements that you made about paleolithic eating? And again like Alan said your lost in your own fairy tale and stay lost by all means but don't preach your nonsense on here.
why do you have to look at it as preaching? if you don't want to discuss the topic then leave the thread.

[MrMisanthrope]

According to the OP, populations in the Blue Zones (regions of the world where people commonly live active lives past the age of 100 years) are doing it wrong.

I'll have to read the study in more detail, but for my opening remarks, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Even my paleolithic sources indicate that plant heavy diets are possible, and that chemical analysis of bones indicates that a wide variety of macronutrient profiles and relative proportions of plant foods were used in the paleolithic.

I don't content that their way is impossible, instead I contend that my way *is* possible. I have to get up in the morning so I'll have to let this one slide for now. Don't worry, I'll get a good response to this study but it will take time. Thank you, Alan. I was waiting for somebody to drop some more potent evidence on me. I eagerly await future discussion.

[mannydawg]

Sir, I've yet to see a reason to doubt anything I believe. I won't stoop to name calling or harsh language. Until convincing counterevidence is posted by somebody, I'm going to come in here every day and use this thread as an infodump for useful paleo information.

Hell, I'll even help - go to pubmed and start looking for things about fat or the negative health effects of meat. I recommend going to vegetarian or vegan forums to seek their advice; they have potent anti-meat information that I would love the chance to test myself against.

Its hilarious how you keep ignoring the questions you can't answer and just keep trying to answer the ones that are obvious like grass fed is superior. we know that. fat is good. we know that.

Now provide studies backing up your claim that grains are satan like you said earlier. oh wait you can't... the Irony

[lolmuscle129]

MrMisanthrope, you can cling to your Weston Price Manifesto and 2-subject observational study. I'm sure you'll be just fine.

For anyone interested in a more scientifically valid (& less myopic) view of the evidence on eating for optimal health & longevity, here's some reading, but first a quote:

"Regardless of scientific approach, there is a remarkable convergence of evidence: Certain aspects of diets improve health and prevent disease, particularly CVD. Whether by factor analysis, as done by Heidemann et al, by scoring systems for specific diets, or by qualitative description of diets consumed by informative populations, dietary patterns associated with longevity emphasize fruits and vegetables and are reduced in saturated fat, meats, refined grains, sweets, and full-fat dairy products. Equally notable is the wide variation in other aspects of healthy diets, particularly macronutrient intake. Traditional Okinawan diets provide 90% of calories from carbohydrate (predominantly from vegetables), whereas the traditional Mediterranean diet provides >40% of calories from fat, mostly monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat."

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/118/3/214

According to the OP, populations in the Blue Zones (regions of the world where people commonly live active lives past the age of 100 years) are doing it wrong.
it would make sense that there are multiple ways to eat "healthy" as in earlier times people ate what they had access to in their area of the world with the given climate.

[MrMisanthrope]

Its hilarious how you keep ignoring the questions you can't answer and just keep trying to answer the ones that are obvious like grass fed is superior. we know that. fat is good. we know that.

Now provide studies backing up your claim that grains are satan like you said earlier. oh wait you can't... the Irony

Don't get your panties in a bunch. I'll get to your questions, but I *do* have a life to attend to. If me having to sleep eventually means someone else gets to have the "last word," then I guess someone else will have the last word at least once per day, won't they? Expect at least a day or two before I get a conclusive answer on something like that.

[lolmuscle129]

in for last word

[mannydawg]

word

[JohnBrowne]

Can we change the subject of this thread to something more exciting... perhaps doing taxes?

[mynameisuntz]

I'll have to read the study in more detail, but for my opening remarks, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Even my paleolithic sources indicate that plant heavy diets are possible, and that chemical analysis of bones indicates that a wide variety of macronutrient profiles and relative proportions of plant foods were used in the paleolithic.

I don't content that their way is impossible, instead I contend that my way *is* possible. I have to get up in the morning so I'll have to let this one slide for now. Don't worry, I'll get a good response to this study but it will take time. Thank you, Alan. I was waiting for somebody to drop some more potent evidence on me. I eagerly await future discussion.

Except paleo contends that their way is SUPERIOR.

That's the proof we need. Not that paleo works, or is healthy, or anything like that. We need evidence that it is BETTER to leave out grains, dairy, etc.

[lolmuscle129]

Except paleo contends that their way is SUPERIOR.

That's the proof we need. Not that paleo works, or is healthy, or anything like that. We need evidence that it is BETTER to leave out grains, dairy, etc.
give me proof that it would be healthier to get carbs from grains rather than fruits/vegetables and protein from dairy as opposed to meats, etc.

[alan aragon]

give me proof that it would be healthier to get carbs from grains rather than fruits/vegetables and protein from dairy as opposed to meats, etc.You're asking for evidence to support a claim that no one has made.

[mannydawg]

Don't get your panties in a bunch. I'll get to your questions, but I *do* have a life to attend to. If me having to sleep eventually means someone else gets to have the "last word," then I guess someone else will have the last word at least once per day, won't they? Expect at least a day or two before I get a conclusive answer on something like that.

Thats it when you can't answer a question run away. You just stated earlier you were going to go buy some kidneys so why say your going to sleep now? Oh i know because you can't answer what we asked you so you rather avoid answering by saying your going to sleep.



They were most definitely eating organs, fat, skin, eyes, entrails etcetera. They ate the entire animal. The whole theory is that organ and glandular tissues are the site of accumulation of many important nutrients. Price documented tribes of hunters that would throw the muscle meat to the dogs and save only the organs of their kills.

They taste pretty good too. I'm about to go buy some grass fed kidneys with adrenal glands still attached (vitamin C rich) and cook them up. I'm hoping to refine the recipe until it's a classy little salad type dish.

[lolmuscle129]

Thats it when you can't answer a question run away. You just stated earlier you were going to go buy some kidneys so why say your going to sleep now? Oh i know because you can't answer what we asked you so you rather avoid answering by saying your going to sleep.
need me to run to the store to get some more tampons for you brah?

[mannydawg]

need me to run to the store to get some more tampons for you brah?

whats your problem? I was pointing out a clear flaw in his statements made just today

[mynameisuntz]

give me proof that it would be healthier to get carbs from grains rather than fruits/vegetables and protein from dairy as opposed to meats, etc.


You're asking for evidence to support a claim that no one has made.

^^What he said.

I don't think anyone here denies paleo is healthy. What's unhealthy about it? The quarrel with paleo is it's dogmatic belief in something completely unfounded in empirical science which leads to unnecessary neuroticism over dietary structure. PALEO, not us opposing it, makes the claim of superiority. I never once said that a diet with grains is better than one without. Paleo, however, claims that a diet without grains is better than one with.

Prove it.

[mynameisuntz]

need me to run to the store to get some more tampons for you brah?

Does your religion allow the purchase of materials that weren't around in the paleolithic era?

[lolmuscle129]

Does your religion allow the purchase of materials that weren't around in the paleolithic era?
no, I guess you'll have to use a small twig

also as previously stated that I do not follow the paleo diet I just find the concept interesting and I would follow it myself if my lifestyle allowed for it.

[lolmuscle129]

^^What he said.

I don't think anyone here denies paleo is healthy. What's unhealthy about it? The quarrel with paleo is it's dogmatic belief in something completely unfounded in empirical science which leads to unnecessary neuroticism over dietary structure. PALEO, not us opposing it, makes the claim of superiority. I never once said that a diet with grains is better than one without. Paleo, however, claims that a diet without grains is better than one with.

Prove it.
well like I've already said I do not follow the paleo diet but I like the concept and theory behind it and think that it would be healthier to get carbs from vegetables/fruits as opposed to grains, etc. and you said you didn't disagree with that. and I believe that studies that could be brought up that says dairy is not good.

[mynameisuntz]

well like I've already said I do not follow the paleo diet but I like the concept and theory behind it and think that it would be healthier to get carbs from vegetables/fruits as opposed to grains, etc. and you said you didn't disagree with that. and I believe that studies that could be brought up that says dairy is not good.

Wat? Dude, it depends on context. If I had to choose between ENTIRELY grains or ENTIRELY vegetables, then yes I'd probably choose vegetables. But I eat plenty of veggies in a day. So once I hit all my vegetable needs, I don't think broccoli is any healthier at that point than a wrap with hummus. Why would it be? It no longer serves any nutritional benefit.

Cool, feel free to show those studies that dairy is bad. The whole, "we're the only species that does it" argument is such a crock of crap. We're the only animals to do lots of things, and guess what? There's a reason we're at the top of the food chain.

[lolmuscle129]

Wat? Dude, it depends on context. If I had to choose between ENTIRELY grains or ENTIRELY vegetables, then yes I'd probably choose vegetables. But I eat plenty of veggies in a day. So once I hit all my vegetable needs, I don't think broccoli is any healthier at that point than a wrap with hummus. Why would it be? It no longer serves any nutritional benefit.

Cool, feel free to show those studies that dairy is bad. The whole, "we're the only species that does it" argument is such a crock of crap. We're the only animals to do lots of things, and guess what? There's a reason we're at the top of the food chain.
okay what? so you're saying after you eat a certain amount of broccoli it suddenly stops giving you nutrional value? sense = none

[alan aragon]

well like I've already said I do not follow the paleo diet but I like the concept and theory behind it and think that it would be healthier to get carbs from vegetables/fruits as opposed to grains, etc. and you said you didn't disagree with that. and I believe that studies that could be brought up that says dairy is not good.So, essentially, you're not a fully materialized Paleotard, but you're prone toward Paleotardation - despite a lack of evidence? Funny how tough it is for some folks to fathom a diet that includes veggies & fruit AND dairy & grains. It reminds me of how some bodybuilders can't see past chicken breast, brown rice, and broccoli.

[alan aragon]

okay what? so you're saying after you eat a certain amount of broccoli it suddenly stops giving you nutrional value? sense = noneNo, he's saying that there is a point of diminishing returns, as with anything. In other words, more is not indefinitely better. C'mon man, this is basic stuff.

[lolmuscle129]

So, essentially, you're not a fully materialized Paleotard, but you're prone toward Paleotardation - despite a lack of evidence? Funny how tough it is for some folks to fathom a diet that includes veggies & fruit AND dairy & grains. It reminds me of how some bodybuilders can't see past chicken breast, brown rice, and broccoli.
you're just as bad as these said "paleotards". listen to yourself.

[lolmuscle129]

No, he's saying that there is a point of diminishing returns, as with anything. In other words, more is not indefinitely better. C'mon man, this is basic stuff.
I'm saying it would still continue to be beneficial if you ate a large amount of a wide variety of vegetables more than the FDA recommended 2 1/2 cups a day.

[mynameisuntz]

okay what? so you're saying after you eat a certain amount of broccoli it suddenly stops giving you nutrional value? sense = none

Your body can only handle so much in regards to macronutrients and micronutrients.

1 pound of broccoli = 150 calories. So, for my cut, if I were to eat 13 pounds of broccoli, do you really think my body will see any more benefit than if I were to eat 12 pounds? 11 pounds? 5 pounds? 1 pound? What is the difference in nutritional benefit from eating a pound of broccoli vs. 13 pounds of broccoli? Your body can only absorb so many micronutrients. If you meet optimal micro needs at a pound of broccoli (or less), what is any more going to do for you?

Understand?


I'm saying it would still continue to be beneficial if you ate a large amount of a wide variety of vegetables more than the FDA recommended 2 1/2 cups a day.

And what do you think that number is? Me eating a pound or two of varied veggies a day is...All too common. That's part of my routine. Along with a multivitamin.

Do you really think, after eating a pound or more of diverse veggies with a multivitamin, that a serving of broccoli is truly going to be better than a serving of whole grains?

[alan aragon]

you're just as bad as these said "paleotards". listen to yourself.Don't lump me in with you & your Paleotarded brethren, please. I don't spout of claims & fail to support them with sufficient evidence. You're a Paleo apologist sitting in the sidelines, hoping to form a solid argument that hasn't happened.

[lolmuscle129]

like I've said this isn't my religion here I just think it's something to look into and be considered. I guess I ended up getting put into the position of defending it. anyway there is the blood sugar regulating benefits of cutting out the grains and dairy as well as the inflammatory properties of these things.

[mynameisuntz]

like I've said this isn't my religion here I just think it's something to look into and be considered. I guess I ended up getting put into the position of defending it. anyway there is the blood sugar regulating benefits of cutting out the grains and dairy as well as the inflammatory properties of these things.

If you compared a paleo diet to a diet that is different in food source but EXACTLY the same in macros, do you think the benefits "specific" to paleo would still be applied solely to paleo?

[lolmuscle129]

Don't lump me in with you & your Paleotarded brethren, please. I don't spout of claims & fail to support them with sufficient evidence. You're a Paleo apologist sitting in the sidelines, hoping to form a solid argument that hasn't happened.
so eat your grains then. if it's not broke then don't fix it. I've been interested in the paleo diet due to purported beneficial affects on acne, energy levels, and ADHD.

[lolmuscle129]

If you compared a paleo diet to a diet that is different in food source but EXACTLY the same in macros, do you think the benefits "specific" to paleo would still be applied solely to paleo?
I'm not understanding the last part of your question.

[alan aragon]

so eat your grains then. if it's not broke then don't fix it. I've been interested in the paleo diet due to purported beneficial affects on acne, energy levels, and ADHD.You need to get familiar with the concept of evidence before entering a discusson & making claims you can't support scientifically.

[mynameisuntz]

I'm not understanding the last part of your question.

Paleo claims that its benefits derive from its food sources. So, if you took the paleo diet and compared it to a non-paleo diet, but kept macronutrients exactly the same, do you think the paleo diet would be superior in any way? By any markers of health that you just mentioned?

[lolmuscle129]

Paleo claims that its benefits derive from its food sources. So, if you took the paleo diet and compared it to a non-paleo diet, but kept macronutrients exactly the same, do you think the paleo diet would be superior in any way? By any markers of health that you just mentioned?
yes I think it would still be beneficial.

[alan aragon]

Paleo claims that its benefits derive from its food sources. So, if you took the paleo diet and compared it to a non-paleo diet, but kept macronutrients exactly the same, do you think the paleo diet would be superior in any way? By any markers of health that you just mentioned?Here's a hoot: Through the course of a week, Person X gets his carbs from grains, legumes, starchy veggies (no restriction on type), nonstarchy veggies, and dairy. Person Y gets an identical amount of carbs from just fruit & Paleo-approved veggies only (ie, no white potatoes, no beans, legumes, etc). Neither have allergies or intolerances to the foods they choose. According to Paleo logic, Person Y's diet is superior because....[insert speculations about prehistoric eating habits combined with a heavy dose of hypocrisy].

[mynameisuntz]

yes I think it would still be beneficial.

Read again.


Paleo claims that its benefits derive from its food sources. So, if you took the paleo diet and compared it to a non-paleo diet, but kept macronutrients exactly the same, do you think the paleo diet would be superior in any way? By any markers of health that you just mentioned?

[mynameisuntz]

Here's a hoot: Through the course of a week, Person X gets his carbs from grains, legumes, starchy veggies (no restriction on type), nonstarchy veggies, dairy. Person Y gets an identical amount of carbs from just fruit & Paleo-approved veggies only (ie, no white potatoes, no beans, legumes, etc). Neither have allergies or intolerances to the foods they choose. According to Paleo logic, Person Y is superior because....[insert speculations about prehistoric eating habits combined with a heavy dose of hypocrisy].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology)

Did I win the game?

[alan aragon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology)

Did I win the game?I sink vee have a veener!!!1

[mynameisuntz]

I sink vee have a veener!!!1

I'm going to celebrate with some fresh milk and a grilled cheese sandwich on whole wheat bread.

And then I'm going to die. Or something? Or I'll get some immune disorder? What's the punishment for whole grain again? Herpes? I can't keep track of this story.

[alan aragon]

I'll have to read the study in more detail, but for my opening remarks, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Even my paleolithic sources indicate that plant heavy diets are possible, and that chemical analysis of bones indicates that a wide variety of macronutrient profiles and relative proportions of plant foods were used in the paleolithic.

I don't content that their way is impossible, instead I contend that my way *is* possible. I have to get up in the morning so I'll have to let this one slide for now. Don't worry, I'll get a good response to this study but it will take time. Thank you, Alan. I was waiting for somebody to drop some more potent evidence on me. I eagerly await future discussion.There's more than a remote possibility that you're a troll since you don't have a pic, and your profile indicates either insanity or a good sense of trolling. Not sure I want to amuse myself with this discussion much further. Just letting you know, so have fun with it - I probably won't feed it any further.

[saltyqld]

Thanks, but I don't think I want the life expectancy of our paleolithic ancestors. The thought of having fewer diseases, and good facial bone health whilst dying in my 40s or so is not that appealing to me.

[SideSteal]

I'm going to celebrate with some fresh milk and a grilled cheese sandwich on whole wheat bread.

And then I'm going to die. Or something? Or I'll get some immune disorder? What's the punishment for whole grain again? Herpes? I can't keep track of this story.

I believe you'll get Herp Derp Derpees actually.

[mynameisuntz]

I believe you'll get Herp Derp Derpees actually.

The most severe of all internet diseases!

[coals]

This is more entertaining than all the IIFYM threads and how many people can't recognize the midpoint between
No ice cream---------*----------the entire tub.

OP has yet to validate a single claim but you all can already see that :rolleyes:

[mynameisuntz]

MrMisanthrope, you can cling to your Weston Price Manifesto and 2-subject observational study. I'm sure you'll be just fine.

For anyone interested in a more scientifically valid (& less myopic) view of the evidence on eating for optimal health & longevity, here's some reading, but first a quote:

"Regardless of scientific approach, there is a remarkable convergence of evidence: Certain aspects of diets improve health and prevent disease, particularly CVD. Whether by factor analysis, as done by Heidemann et al, by scoring systems for specific diets, or by qualitative description of diets consumed by informative populations, dietary patterns associated with longevity emphasize fruits and vegetables and are reduced in saturated fat, meats, refined grains, sweets, and full-fat dairy products. Equally notable is the wide variation in other aspects of healthy diets, particularly macronutrient intake. Traditional Okinawan diets provide 90% of calories from carbohydrate (predominantly from vegetables), whereas the traditional Mediterranean diet provides >40% of calories from fat, mostly monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat."

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/118/3/214

According to the OP, populations in the Blue Zones (regions of the world where people commonly live active lives past the age of 100 years) are doing it wrong.

Hopefully Alan returns to this thread, because I have a questionz.

Alan - since this study is based on correlations (heavy ones with giant populations at that), would you say what this research does is show the difficult time paleo-subscribers will have in refuting higher carb/high whole grain diets? Considering the variables mentioned in the Blue Zone research, it's not so much we can definitively say "whole grain is beneficial," but rather "whole grain isn't hindering life expectancy at all"?

Is that a proper interpretation of this research? Paleo says, "whole grain is bad," but you point to the 4 longest-living populations and say, "then why isn't it hurting these populations?" Refutes the negative effects of whole grain, but can't necessarily declare whole grain as being beneficial as it's correlation?

[alan aragon]

Hopefully Alan returns to this thread, because I have a questionz.

Alan - since this study is based on correlations (heavy ones with giant populations at that), would you say what this research does is show the difficult time paleo-subscribers will have in refuting higher carb/high whole grain diets? Considering the variables mentioned in the Blue Zone research, it's not so much we can definitively say "whole grain is beneficial," but rather "whole grain isn't hindering life expectancy at all"?

Is that a proper interpretation of this research? Paleo says, "whole grain is bad," but you point to the 4 longest-living populations and say, "then why isn't it hurting these populations?" Refutes the negative effects of whole grain, but can't necessarily declare whole grain as being beneficial as it's correlation?This Blue Zone post of mine was a "bon voyage" response to his assertion that an all-meat diet is The Way. The Paleo discussion pretty much ended after he let that cat out of the bag. I don't see any sense in conversing with a madman, lol. With that said, there's a fair amount of controlled interventional research showing the beneficial effects of grains, legumes, & dairy. Not just correlational research.

[KLMARB]

Here's a hoot: Through the course of a week, Person X gets his carbs from grains, legumes, starchy veggies (no restriction on type), nonstarchy veggies, and dairy. Person Y gets an identical amount of carbs from just fruit & Paleo-approved veggies only (ie, no white potatoes, no beans, legumes, etc). Neither have allergies or intolerances to the foods they choose. According to Paleo logic, Person Y's diet is superior because....[insert speculations about prehistoric eating habits combined with a heavy dose of hypocrisy].

Ah, Alan provides the "crux" of the argument. Allergies and intolerances. Discordant effects. What paleo provides is a reasonable starting point to identify discordance. If you can tolerate foods, why eliminate them?

[mynameisuntz]

This Blue Zone post of mine was a "bon voyage" response to his assertion that an all-meat diet is The Way. The Paleo discussion pretty much ended after he let that cat out of the bag. I don't see any sense in conversing with a madman, lol. With that said, there's a fair amount of controlled interventional research showing the beneficial effects of grains, legumes, & dairy. Not just correlational research.

Understood, thanks for the clarification.

I tried looking on Pubmed and couldn't find anything that was NOT correlational (there's a fck ton of correlational research on grains). Do you have any credible titles/authors/links around by chance?

[alan aragon]

Understood, thanks for the clarification.

I tried looking on Pubmed and couldn't find anything that was NOT correlational (there's a fck ton of correlational research on grains). Do you have any credible titles/authors/links around by chance?A couple compilations for ya:

Bazzano LA, et al. Non-soy legume consumption lowers cholesterol levels: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2009 Nov 23.

Kelly SA, et al. Wholegrain cereals for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):CD005051.

[mynameisuntz]

A couple compilations for ya:

Bazzano LA, et al. Non-soy legume consumption lowers cholesterol levels: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2009 Nov 23.

Kelly SA, et al. Wholegrain cereals for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):CD005051.

Thanks so much!

[MrMisanthrope]

Oooookay, back to this thread. The last few days have been a little busy.


PALEO, not us opposing it, makes the claim of superiority. I never once said that a diet with grains is better than one without. Paleo, however, claims that a diet without grains is better than one with.

Prove it.

Ok! Will do. I'll get to work digging up primary literature to compare the rates of tooth decay, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and anything else I can think up in populations that eat paleo vs. those that do not. Understand however that I never made that claim. Is there some mainstream centralized source of information about paleo nutrition that dispenses this and other similar claims? If so, I'd like to know about it so I can be prepared to answer for whatever some big shot has said.


Here's a hoot: Through the course of a week, Person X gets his carbs from grains, legumes, starchy veggies (no restriction on type), nonstarchy veggies, and dairy. Person Y gets an identical amount of carbs from just fruit & Paleo-approved veggies only (ie, no white potatoes, no beans, legumes, etc). Neither have allergies or intolerances to the foods they choose. According to Paleo logic, Person Y's diet is superior because....[insert speculations about prehistoric eating habits combined with a heavy dose of hypocrisy].

Micronutrients. We've been through this. I like how I say in ten foot tall letters, "The paleo diet is NOT a macronutrient plan, and instead concerns itself with micronutrient density comparisons between modern and primitive foods," and then you turn around and complain that the macronutrient compositions are identical therefore the diet is identical to others. I don't want to come to condescending language (despite you having used it on me from the beginning), but the way you fail to understand my simple thought process and say "that isn't real evidence" to all of my dozens of sources is starting to make me think that you don't want to let yourself be convinced. I'm starting to get the impression that if I posted a 2011 collaborative piece by Harvard, UCLA and University of Tokyo researchers that repeated and confirmed the complete works of McClellan, DuBois, Eaton and Price in their entirety, you'd still tell me that for this or that reason, it doesn't count as scientific evidence. I'll continue, however. A man has to do what he has to do.

My to do list:
• - Compare paleo diet population health to non paleo population health (update: A past biochemistry professor of mine just made me aware of both a comprehensive reference book detailing the history of research of the molecular mechanisms of many human diseases along with a searchable online database that has the same info and gets updated every time new research comes out. Therefore, I will be able to directly connect micronutrient density in diets to many diseases by knowing their mechanisms, making comparative studies on the health vs. diet of populations unnecessary in the future. This should get good.)

• - Find sources on dairy (This, I have some materials on already. Like with grains, it suggests that it is not the broad category that is the problem so much as the source and processing method that determines if there is sufficient nutrient density in dairy products or whether the milk/yogurt/butter/cheese/cream is nutritionally vacant. Sources coming soon.)

• - Find a satisfactory answer to Alan Aragon's last source on longevity and asian diets

• - Find sources on longevity and paleo diet (did you know Stefansson lived to be 83 on his all meat diet, and that the low average life expectancy was largely due to infant mortality?)

• - Post the sources indicating that a paleolithic diet of largely meat is not atherogenic and does not cause high serum cholesterol levels, thus countering Alan's last two sources

Longer term:
• - Compile info comparing the bioavailability of nutrients on paleo diets vs. non paleo diets. Weston Price asserted that percentage wise, even the abundant nutrients of paleo foods are absorbed only in small quantities. He also stated directly that many of the compounds he discusses serve to facilitate the uptake of other beneficial nutrients, and stated that modern diets lacking in these uptake facilitating compounds cause a smaller percentage of the already fewer micronutrients in modern foods to be absorbed. Combined with the sources I already have discussing nutrient uptake inhibiting compounds from agriculturally derived foods like grains and legumes and with any materials I can find concerning bioavailabilities of different resources from different sources, I could make a strong case for runaway malnutrition in modern diets using only sources from the last five years or so. Combined with the new resources I've acquired about the mechanisms of many human diseases, I'll be able to reconfirm the findings of Price et. al. several times over using current and respectable sources. I look forward to this research project more than answering forum criticism.

[alan aragon]

ITT: OP inadvertently agrues that micronutrition dosing has no point of diminishing returns, all while conveniently assigning his own personal definition to "Paleo"

'Tis a joke.

[MrMisanthrope]

ITT: OP inadvertently agrues that micronutrition dosing has no point of diminishing returns, all while conveniently assigning his own personal definition to "Paleo"

'Tis a joke.

I'm sure there's a point of diminishing returns. However, the average person has his teeth fall out during his lifetime and whithers away into a decrepit sack of crap past age 50 or so. Meanwhile, the Ache can still run at 22 miles per hour in their 50's and still have all of their teeth.

Just on the topic of longevity I'm compiling a list of historical figures, scientists, mathematicians, artists etcetera who lived in the day and age when there was no diet available other than the one I describe, and noting the frequency with which these people lived to 75+. A lot of these people lived into their 80's. The old Icelandic traditional diet was pure paleo, and Stefansson reports that his grandmother hadn't even seen a piece of bread until her teens. Consequently, she had never seen tooth decay but she heard it was awfully painful and hoped she never caught it from those filthy civilized folk. People from the Sagas of the Icelanders were mentioned to have often lived to their 80's and people of notoriously good blood even longer. Egil Skallagrimsson was still a geezer and he was still wrecking crap, mostly bailing out his weenie of a son. He died in his 80's too, as did Stefansson with his all meat diet.

Maybe that's because how long you live is defined moreso by your genetics than by your diet! Who'da thunk!

[Twisted13]

I'm sure there's a point of diminishing returns. However, the average person has his teeth fall out during his lifetime and whithers away into a decrepit sack of crap past age 50 or so. Meanwhile, the Ache can still run at 22 miles per hour in their 50's and still have all of their teeth.

Stopped reading there.

Usain Bolt's (the fastest man ever) world record speed at a 150m dash was roughly 23.38mph. The fastest recorded speed ever was him running the last 100m of that 150m record breaking run, which he ran at 25.71mph for 8.7sec.

And you expect people to believe you bull****?

[TBU720]

OP: Do you eat chicken? The chicken we eat today has been domesticated and genetically altered by thousands of years of domestic breeding. Therefore, the food is not the same as something that would have been found during the paleolithic period.

Hell, you can eat bananas on the paleo diet right? The bananas we eat are a complete domesticated invention of mankind. What about nectarines? Nectarines are an invention of agriculture.

[bonkerzzz]

As an acne sufferer cutting out grains has been the best descision of my life. While its not really paleo just to cut out grains, I have to say I feel a whole lot better without them. I've had all sorts of tests done for gluten intolerance and all results were negative.

Since cutting them out alone I feel I have much more energy, my acne heals faster as well as my skin becomes less oily (why acne forms). I sleep better, recovery improves and I experience a lot less bloat. With all this in mind, for me, it raises the question as to why someone with no signs of any type of gluten intolerance would experience these symptoms?

While I completely agree that its stupid that paleo followers rave on about how their way of eating is better on unsupported ground, I just thought my experience would bring some interesting points into the thread.


Thanks, but I don't think I want the life expectancy of our paleolithic ancestors. The thought of having fewer diseases, and good facial bone health whilst dying in my 40s or so is not that appealing to me.

Strong ignorance.

[midcoastking33]

ITT strong WK of our paleolithic ancestors.

1. They most definitely did eat grains, sorry. Get the stupid romanticized view of 200 pound, 7% body fat cavemen out of your minds because IRL these people were small and emeciated

2. We have a completely different bacterial profile existing in our GI tract, which makes any comparisons null and void

3. Different environments, different expression of genes. You mad?

[MrMisanthrope]

Of paleolithic peoples, I have the following to say:

1. I'm sorry, but they most definitely did eat grains. Paleolithic people were not 6 foot 200 pound people with 7% body fat. In actuality they were small and emaciated.

2. We have a completely different bacterial profile existing in our GI tract, which makes any comparisons null and void.

3. Different environments, different expression of genes.

Sir, I accept your challenge. I have also done you the dignifying favor of removing most of the 4chan lingo from your post.

Cro-magnon man had an average height of 1.8 meters and up, with the females being around 1.65 meters (1, 2), with a larger cranial capacity than that of modern man (2, 3). This larger cranial capacity is reflected in their relatively sophisticated art, culture and non-sexist burial practices (3). I am also pleased to report that Cro Magnon man was thoroughly jacked and robust with thicker bones and stronger musculature than moderners (1, 3, 4) as a result of close quarters struggles for existence against horrifyingly powerful animal opponents equivalent to sci fi monsters (4). This is also largely due to the fact that they ate a diet comprised almost entirely of meat (5).

Cro Magnon people were tall jacked permafrost dwelling space marines that chased down animals the size of busses and hated them to death with spears and hatchets (3, 4). Due to the fact that they were jacked snow jedi, equivalent to an entire race of Jon Pall Sigmarssons (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), they were not satisfied with simply murdering and eating every quadruped they could get their hands on, and so are credited with exterminating the neanderthal race as well (5).

On point 1, you have been defeated unless you can do something about your paucity of citation. Points two and three, I'm not entirely familiar with. I'd like to see more information about the importance of gastrointestinal tract microbial profiles; I've encountered some references to the paleolithic diet changing GI microbial profiles but at the same time I have not looked into this variable's implications in health and robustitude. Please enlighten me to this. Also, please clarify what your point is with the statement that different environments cause different genes to be expressed. I know that to be true, but I don't know *which* genes you're referring to or how it changes anything I've said.

=======================

1. 1989, "Human Evolution, An Illustrated Guide," Peter Andres & Chris Stringer, p. 46
2. 2006, "The Nature of the World and of Man," H. H. Newman
3. 2006, "The Secret History of the World and How To Get Out Alive," Laura Knight-Jadczyk, p. 233 (note: this source cites its primary literature right under the exact passage where the info is stated. Joyous!)
4. University of Washington (9/23/03) "Bones from Frend cave show Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon hunted same prey." Science Daily.
5. 2003, "Whither The Neanderthals," R. G. Klein, Science, 1525-1527 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1525.short

[vipervin]

MrMisanthrope-- thanks for starting this thread. A ton of information and I appreciate your approach of answering questions. A lot of doubt in this thread, but that is expected when going against "modern" wisdom.

BTW, go Tritons! ;)

[TBU720]

You didn't answer my question. Why can you eat modern chickens if they are genetically different from the animals that a paleolithic man ate?

Same for fruits and veggies. A lot of the stuff that paleo people eat was not really around in the paleolithic era

[MrMisanthrope]

You didn't answer my question. Why can you eat modern chickens if they are genetically different from the animals that a paleolithic man ate?

Same for fruits and veggies. A lot of the stuff that paleo people eat was not really around in the paleolithic era

This will come in spurts; I'm a busy guy. I'll try to get to everything but some takes a few rounds of thought and research to compose an answer to, when I might not even have enough time in a day for one round.

As for chickens....
Well, first of all, almost everything that paleolithic man ate is now extinct. That's because they drove the pleistocene megafauna extinct, being jacked killing machines and all. Almost everything edible and large that people in the paleolithic proper used to eat is now extinct.

The point of the paleolithic dietary concept is not to eat the exact animals, although I'm sure that would help.

You see, the whole point of this is that known and documented groups of primitives experience levels of robustness and freedom from degenerative diseases that we modern people can't even fathom. They wake up, have their meat and water, and are good to go. All day. Every day. From birth to death. No diabetes, hardly any cancer, no arthritis, no tuberculosis, positively no tooth decay or bone deformities, no anything. This stuff is all documented by Stefansson, Price and some more recent sources that I've scattered throughout my other postings.

In seeking to acquire these health benefits for ourselves, somebody at some point noted that paleolithic man ate the same way as modern primitives, and thus the whole "we evolved for such and such a lifestyle" concept came into vogue, said lifestyle being that of a hunter gatherer eating a largely or entirely carnivorous diet.

Modern chickens are probably highly modified, as are modern cows and modern everything. I guess somehow we'd have to test to see if the same health benefits that modern primitives enjoy can be acquired by consuming these modified animals. Can they? Who knows? In theory yeah, stuff still bioaccumulates, why not? Still, we don't know.

________________________________________________

What I'm coming to gradually realize is that what I preach and follow is not really anything like adherence to speculated paleolithic nutrition. I'm starting to realize that I don't base anything I do or believe about nutrition off of what a hypothetical group of people allegedly did; it's what documented groups of savages and primitives in the last century are confirmed to have done and the results it got. Perhaps that's why it irritates me so much to see such harsh resistance to the concept of eating as we evolved to eat for best results, but then again I never really stopped to consider the fact that a true "paleotard" would be citing sources about archaeological digs as a source of nutritional advice, while I couldn't give half a crap about what extinct groups did because the modern primitives have already told us what works here and now, with resources that are currently available.

Perhaps I'm not really a paleo dieter, but maybe I am something different.

I'll have to think about this for a while. Maybe I have done myself a disservice to label myself alongside people who, to hear this forum tell it, would tell us that we are all doomed to an early grave on anything but a diet of pure mammoth blubber because of what they read about some archaeological dig, when in reality all I have ever asserted was that known groups of savages practiced a certain lifestyle and got known results, which were then documented by science to a substantial but underrated extent.

Perhaps, in pursuit of what I have chosen to call "paleo dieting," I have actually stumbled upon something newer, better, more practical and more scientifically documented. Perhaps I need to part ways with paleo and forge the next evolution of the same intent.

Perhaps I will be the first proponent and writer on the topic of neoprimitive nutrition.

[adpayne]

I'm sure there's a point of diminishing returns. However, the average person has his teeth fall out during his lifetime and whithers away into a decrepit sack of crap past age 50 or so.

You can't be serious? Apparently, my body hasn't got that memo yet. ;)

I've tried all sorts of diets, and training routines, over the years. What I've learned is being dogmatic is dangerous. Being locked in to a point of view hinders one from accepting new ideas, or truths. I used to take the studies by Weston, that you've quoted, as the truth. It makes it hard to reconcile that other populations (such as the Okinawa, as Alan aluded to) have done well on dissimilar diets.

I'm glad you are satisfied with your way of doing things. I prefer other ways.

Art

[MrMisanthrope]

You can't be serious? Apparently, my body hasn't got that memo yet. ;)

I've tried all sorts of diets, and training routines, over the years. What I've learned is being dogmatic is dangerous. Being locked in to a point of view hinders one from accepting new ideas, or truths. I used to take the studies by Weston, that you've quoted, as the truth. It makes it hard to reconcile that other populations (such as the Okinawa, as Alan aluded to) have done well on dissimilar diets.

I'm glad you are satisfied with your way of doing things. I prefer other ways.

Art
Well, the longer I live, the more I realize that the human body is a tremendously adaptable machine, capable of making a lot of lifestyles doable. My priorities are tooth decay, diabetes prevention, cardiovascular health and robustness in old age, so this business works for me.

I agree with you. It's silly to look at humanity, such a cosmopolitan creature, and assign to it the notion that there is precisely one way for them to be healthy when all of the evidence in the world indicates otherwise. I do what I do now mostly because it leaves me feeling good and healthy, and because my teeth are strong and free of decay when I eat this way.

[KLMARB]

This will come in spurts; I'm a busy guy. I'll try to get to everything but some takes a few rounds of thought and research to compose an answer to, when I might not even have enough time in a day for one round.

As for chickens....
Well, first of all, almost everything that paleolithic man ate is now extinct. That's because they drove the pleistocene megafauna extinct, being jacked killing machines and all. Almost everything edible and large that people in the paleolithic proper used to eat is now extinct.

The point of the paleolithic dietary concept is not to eat the exact animals, although I'm sure that would help.

You see, the whole point of this is that known and documented groups of primitives experience levels of robustness and freedom from degenerative diseases that we modern people can't even fathom. They wake up, have their meat and water, and are good to go. All day. Every day. From birth to death. No diabetes, hardly any cancer, no arthritis, no tuberculosis, positively no tooth decay or bone deformities, no anything. This stuff is all documented by Stefansson, Price and some more recent sources that I've scattered throughout my other postings.

In seeking to acquire these health benefits for ourselves, somebody at some point noted that paleolithic man ate the same way as modern primitives, and thus the whole "we evolved for such and such a lifestyle" concept came into vogue, said lifestyle being that of a hunter gatherer eating a largely or entirely carnivorous diet.

Modern chickens are probably highly modified, as are modern cows and modern everything. I guess somehow we'd have to test to see if the same health benefits that modern primitives enjoy can be acquired by consuming these modified animals. Can they? Who knows? In theory yeah, stuff still bioaccumulates, why not? Still, we don't know.

________________________________________________

What I'm coming to gradually realize is that what I preach and follow is not really anything like adherence to speculated paleolithic nutrition. I'm starting to realize that I don't base anything I do or believe about nutrition off of what a hypothetical group of people allegedly did; it's what documented groups of savages and primitives in the last century are confirmed to have done and the results it got. Perhaps that's why it irritates me so much to see such harsh resistance to the concept of eating as we evolved to eat for best results, but then again I never really stopped to consider the fact that a true "paleotard" would be citing sources about archaeological digs as a source of nutritional advice, while I couldn't give half a crap about what extinct groups did because the modern primitives have already told us what works here and now, with resources that are currently available.

Perhaps I'm not really a paleo dieter, but maybe I am something different.

I'll have to think about this for a while. Maybe I have done myself a disservice to label myself alongside people who, to hear this forum tell it, would tell us that we are all doomed to an early grave on anything but a diet of pure mammoth blubber because of what they read about some archaeological dig, when in reality all I have ever asserted was that known groups of savages practiced a certain lifestyle and got known results, which were then documented by science to a substantial but underrated extent.

Perhaps, in pursuit of what I have chosen to call "paleo dieting," I have actually stumbled upon something newer, better, more practical and more scientifically documented. Perhaps I need to part ways with paleo and forge the next evolution of the same intent.

Perhaps I will be the first proponent and writer on the topic of neoprimitive nutrition.

Not to nitpick here, especially since following paleo guidelines has enabled me to identify several discordant foods that were part of my diet (and causing life-long negative chronic effects), but, the issue of the extinction of ice age megafauna is still very much under debate. One view, which I consider plausible, is that there was an impact event that occurred at the end of the last ice age, causing the 1,000 yr. long "Younger Dryas". Sediment layers seem to support this. (no crater due to the impact hitting the ice sheet) So, it can be argued that elimination of Man's abundant food supply is what turned him to farming. Food for thought....

[MrMisanthrope]

Not to nitpick here, especially since following paleo guidelines has enabled me to identify several discordant foods that were part of my diet (and causing life-long negative chronic effects), but, the issue of the extinction of ice age megafauna is still very much under debate. One view, which I consider plausible, is that there was an impact event that occurred at the end of the last ice age, causing the 1,000 yr. long "Younger Dryas". Sediment layers seem to support this. (no crater due to the impact hitting the ice sheet) So, it can be argued that elimination of Man's abundant food supply is what turned him to farming. Food for thought....

No, you're right. There's two or three competing theories on that particular topic. I just like the "man killed everything" version because it makes paleolithic man sound badass.

[midcoastking33]

Well, the longer I live, the more I realize that the human body is a tremendously adaptable machine, capable of making a lot of lifestyles doable. My priorities are tooth decay, diabetes prevention, cardiovascular health and robustness in old age, so this business works for me.

I agree with you. It's silly to look at humanity, such a cosmopolitan creature, and assign to it the notion that there is precisely one way for them to be healthy when all of the evidence in the world indicates otherwise. I do what I do now mostly because it leaves me feeling good and healthy, and because my teeth are strong and free of decay when I eat this way.

This is all that matters at the end of the day

[dustinlima]

The burden of proof is on the guy making the bold claims (you), not the person questioning the claims.I've never really understood this whole burden of proof thing.

To OP, his claims are not bold. To OP, AA's claims denying the validity of paleo diet are perhaps just as bold. Of course, AA's not the one trying (hard) to convince people of something; OP is, though.

Though if you say his claims are questionable, then you make it sound as though your viewpoint (which sees his claims as questionable) is the accepted dogma --which would mean that there's already slight evidence to say he is wrong?

And... imo it doesn't have to be people sticking up for their own claims. I think it's possible to be adversarial and actively refute a claim through science, as opposed to passively discounting it due to a lack of research.

I dunno, I never understood the whole burden of proof thing.




ps just ate some potatoes

[deadcow]

The idea behind low carb diets (atkins , paleo , south beach) is ketosis.
The difference between them is marketing.
All of them work extremely well when a person tries to loose as much body fat as possible while hanging on to muscle.
There are NO studies whatsoever on long term commitment to these diets. None. The only studies done are published by the people that sell these diets (like the famous 10 people study funded by atkins foundation that looked at healthy 20yr olds consuming an all meat diet for 3 months.)
What this diets do can also be achieved through medication though no doctor will prescribe you such medication if you are healthy.
To cut things short , you could inject yourself with salbutamol and insulin and achieve the same thing. the funny thing is you would also reduce the chance of hyperkalemia. You 're gonna be able to take a dump once in a while also.
( http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/86/5/2191 )
If you do it and end up in a coma , please rep back . I'm in the red here since I can't fit donuts in my macros and my scientific evidence is cherry picked.

[synthetic]

Food for thought... their diet was perfect, but lifestyle redundant, not much was to be learned/invented, memory storage not that great as the brains... as we gather our knowledge across time, math, reading etc, our brains have more variety and learning (a vast knowledge of knowing what situations / actions to avoid that leads to sickness or death)... this could be the key to longevity.

[danbk99]

One of the more high-profile fans of the Paleo-lithic diet is author Nissim Nicholas Taleb, of Black Swan (a book on the implications of the 2008 Financial Crisis) fame. I found this odd because he has made statements like "I am only interested in things that are emprical " (not an exact quote). He is apparently personal friends with Art DeVany.

I posted to his facebook comment section on this and my comment was removed. I did mention Alan Aragon's research review, which he may have taken as being some sort of promotional spam/trolling or something...

[MrMisanthrope]

The idea behind low carb diets (atkins , paleo , south beach) is ketosis.
The difference between them is marketing.
All of them work extremely well when a person tries to loose as much body fat as possible while hanging on to muscle.
There are NO studies whatsoever on long term commitment to these diets. None. The only studies done are published by the people that sell these diets (like the famous 10 people study funded by atkins foundation that looked at healthy 20yr olds consuming an all meat diet for 3 months.)
What this diets do can also be achieved through medication though no doctor will prescribe you such medication if you are healthy.
To cut things short , you could inject yourself with salbutamol and insulin and achieve the same thing. the funny thing is you would also reduce the chance of hyperkalemia. You 're gonna be able to take a dump once in a while also.
( http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/86/5/2191 )
If you do it and end up in a coma , please rep back . I'm in the red here since I can't fit donuts in my macros and my scientific evidence is cherry picked.

Mind you that I'm no longer arguing from a canonical paleo perspective, but yes, there have been long term studies - extensive long term studies. Please see DuBois et. al. in the beginning. Also, see the part where I indicate strongly that although in macronutrient terms it is similar to keto and atkins, the important differentiating factor is micronutrient density in the fats.

Interestingly enough, the more I look into this and read the fine details of the different studies I've posted, this *isn't* macronutritionally the same as ketogenic dieting, and it's definitely not the same as atkins. In the same study I just pointed to, Stefansson and his colleague ate roughly two grams of fat per gram of protein in the animals they consumed. That's a heavy bias towards fat compared to any diet I've ever heard in my life. Given the fact that back then there were still large patches of pristine wilderness, the animals consumed would have been ridiculously nutrient dense.

I bet in terms of vitamins and minerals, he couldn't have been more well stocked if he ground up handful scoops of vitamin pills and blended them up in a cup of wheat grass and chugged it with every meal.

[deadcow]

those are not long term studies. please do not be offended but none of them are scientifically valid . the tests are biased and plain out wrong.you can prove or disprove anything with 1000 patients.
Look at Alan Aragon. His take on ketosis is a new one I admit. But what he is promoting is calorie restriction. And that has only been proven on mice (increases life span). I know it works , because i have been on a CR diet for 10yrs and I look like i'm 20yrs old.
but there are no studies too show that it works. Not on humans .

[MrMisanthrope]

those are not long term studies. please do not be offended but none of them are scientifically valid . the tests are biased and plain out wrong.you can prove or disprove anything with 1000 patients.
Look at Alan Aragon. His take on ketosis is a new one I admit. But what he is promoting is calorie restriction. And that has only been proven on mice (increases life span). I know it works , because i have been on a CR diet for 10yrs and I look like i'm 20yrs old.
but there are no studies too show that it works. Not on humans .

Point out which studies you have a problem with and what makes them biased, wrong, or scientifically invalid.

Meanwhile, I keep talking about micronutrient density and its effects on skin, bone density and development, teeth, tuberculosis, fertility rates etcetera and people keep bringing up other health stuff I never mentioned in their arguments.

I've already mentioned, but although I don't (currently) have any sources to back it up, all of my practical experience indicates that longevity is hereditary and it doesn't matter all that much what you do to try to augment your lifespan. I saw a study once comparing WWII generation twins in which one twin was healthy and the other drank, smoked, ate greasy food and chased wild women and they only died on average 6 months earlier than the healthy twin. I could try to find it again.

Caloric restriction does make sense, but then again it doesn't explain why Vietnamese and Africans don't live to be 1,000.

[synthetic]

Point out which studies you have a problem with and what makes them biased, wrong, or scientifically invalid.

Meanwhile, I keep talking about micronutrient density and its effects on skin, bone density and development, teeth, tuberculosis, fertility rates etcetera and people keep bringing up other health stuff I never mentioned in their arguments.

I've already mentioned, but although I don't (currently) have any sources to back it up, all of my practical experience indicates that longevity is hereditary and it doesn't matter all that much what you do to try to augment your lifespan. I saw a study once comparing WWII generation twins in which one twin was healthy and the other drank, smoked, ate greasy food and chased wild women and they only died on average 6 months earlier than the healthy twin. I could try to find it again.

Caloric restriction does make sense, but then again it doesn't explain why Vietnamese and Africans don't live to be 1,000.

careful to stereotype... africans of non 3rd world nations eat with no caloric deficit... south africa, morocco, etc

[MrMisanthrope]

careful to stereotype... africans of non 3rd world nations eat with no caloric deficit... south africa, morocco, etc

Ok, but that totally does not change my point - if caloric deficit was such a big deal for longevity, I'd expect all of the starving nations to produce members living to be 120+ or something. Obviously there's more to it than mere numerical reduction in calories.

[deadcow]

Ok, but that totally does not change my point - if caloric deficit was such a big deal for longevity, I'd expect all of the starving nations to produce members living to be 120+ or something. Obviously there's more to it than mere numerical reduction in calories.

I said that the studies are invalid because I want to see 100k people ,over 10yr follow-ups and more importantly different age groups (infants and elderly). Again , if you give me healthy 20yr males I can prove that cocaine lowers cholesterol. Or any fallacy for that matter.
In regards to skin , bone density improvements etc in paleo diet followers I have a suspicion that the increased consumption of micro-nutrient dense vegetables is to blame. I don't think your body could care less if you eat grains or what the ARN of your chicken parmigiana looks like , although I will admit that pumping your body with antibiotics and growth hormones would have a nasty effect in the long run.
This can be easily proven since we know that the old school Mediterranean diet (the cretan diet) promotes longer life spans and lowers the incidence of CVD and cancer even if it's higher in fat then the western diet ( see the French Paradox). My point being that it's not the fat , it's those dreaded carbs that matter. Onion , garlic , celery , tomatoes , spinach , cucumber , carrots etc.
Also we know that in the last 20yrs the adoption of a western style diet in Asia has increased the incidence of certain types of cancers and lymphomas . You can easily look at a chart of pork consumption in China and superimpose it on Hodgkin's lymphoma. It is not proven it will not be proven anytime soon but I believe that argument to be true unless there is a scientific breakthrough that shows that rice and cabbage cause cancer. (cancer being 40pct dietary. and I do believe that unless you work with asbestos or live near a nuclear facility cancer is 90% environmental . So it is preventable by DIET alone. )
So , to cut things short ,whenever you go on a diet that makes you eat plant based foods (other than potatoes) you will increase life span and you will feel better. You could eat only home raised chicken and hand-fed cows. It doesn't matter.
In regards to calorie restriction , it is supposed to be Calorie Restriction without malnutrition and with appropriate micro nutrient intake. So , as you can see , it's pretty difficult to follow such a regimen. I also have a suspicion that it works because of reduced insulin levels , lowered cellular divisions and some type of unstudied hormesis.
My body got so used to that kind of eating it's mind blowing how little I allow myself to eat without loosing weight. On the days that I don't workout I consume under 1000 cals. Four weeks per year I stop eating entirely without loosing weight and challenging the whole thermodynamics argument.My parents are doctors , my friends are doctors and I've been near hospitals all my life. On paper , I'm starving myself. In reality I'm trying to get rid of some belly fat to show my lower abs =) . But that's another topic altogether.
In conclusion , I would advise paleo followers to do a little bit of research on methylation imbalance because there is some conflicting research that shows that high fat , high animal protein diets promote and increase the expression of DNA methyltransferase which leads to chromosome instability and it's a biomarker for tumorigenesis (I dont know how to spell that . hihi) So yeah , meat can kill you it seems. There is also research that shows casein or lack of casein can turn on and off tumor cells. That's one of the reasons I choose not to consume whey protein and rely mostly on soy protein. I would rather take the risk of growing man boobs than of getting cancer. So be careful when experimenting with these diets. They do their part when trying to induce ketosis but I'm not sure that your body appreciates it. It is disputable.
And i"m gonna get really really negged for this post. Hihihihihi.

[AJamesE]

Sir, I accept your challenge. I have also done you the dignifying favor of removing most of the 4chan lingo from your post.

Cro-magnon man had an average height of 1.8 meters and up, with the females being around 1.65 meters (1, 2), with a larger cranial capacity than that of modern man (2, 3). This larger cranial capacity is reflected in their relatively sophisticated art, culture and non-sexist burial practices (3). I am also pleased to report that Cro Magnon man was thoroughly jacked and robust with thicker bones and stronger musculature than moderners (1, 3, 4) as a result of close quarters struggles for existence against horrifyingly powerful animal opponents equivalent to sci fi monsters (4). This is also largely due to the fact that they ate a diet comprised almost entirely of meat (5).

Cro Magnon people were tall jacked permafrost dwelling space marines that chased down animals the size of busses and hated them to death with spears and hatchets (3, 4). Due to the fact that they were jacked snow jedi, equivalent to an entire race of Jon Pall Sigmarssons (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), they were not satisfied with simply murdering and eating every quadruped they could get their hands on, and so are credited with exterminating the neanderthal race as well (5).



You are terribly misinformed if you whole-heartedly believe we drove Neanderthals to extinction.

Cro-magnons were also not as strong as you're making them out to be.

[Holyspokes]

News flash: whey protein does not have casein in it.

You've been practicing calorie restriction for how long and you can't see your lower abs?

[MrMisanthrope]

You are terribly misinformed if you whole-heartedly believe we drove Neanderthals to extinction.

Cro-magnons were also not as strong as you're making them out to be.

I know that Cro magnons exterminating neanderthals is just one of several competing theories. I don't have a strong conviction, but I like the sounds of cro magnons exterminating them because it sounds cooler. As for their physical robustness, I already provided sources earlier in the thread.

[MrMisanthrope]

I said that the studies are invalid because I want to see 100k people ,over 10yr follow-ups and more importantly different age groups...

Weston Price, Bellvue Ward Study, Viljalmur Stefansson, anything I posted about the Ache, and the fact that mainstream paleo is a load of crap that states in general that it's okay to eat any amount of plant or animal matter in any proportion you want so long as it's "natural," combined with a lot of well meaning mythology about evolution that runs counter to what is known about real modern savages, and that I do not really endorse or follow mainstream faileo dieting but instead advocate something both more extreme and sensible all at the same time.

Negged for not reading the thread or my assertions and then making me read a big wall of text.

[JuanF11]

UCSD brahs up in this thread??

[TheDudemeister]

I wanna point out a couple of things. First, the tooth decay issue. When you first start reading the information, it does look convincing. However, I wanna mention the first discovered Homo erectus. That 12 year old boy that was like 6ft tall. Archeologists always believed he had drowned. Modern forensics revealed otherwise. He had actually died from a massive infection that started in his mouth. He had an abscessed tooth, and the infection from which is what caused his death. Given this was 2 million years ago, I would have to assume he was following a passing Paleo Diet. Sure the diet’s healthy, but don’t think you’re immune to everything from illness to tooth decay because you follow a specific diet. There’s the burden of one proof.

Next is the bone degeneration claims. The first ever discovered Neanderthal gave rise to a stereotype that made cavemen out to be primitive and weak because his skeleton was all messed up. Archeologists at the time said that since this one Neanderthal was in this condition, then they all must have been. Next thing you know, there’s a public image of cavemen as being weak and inferior. However, modern forensics stepped in and revealed what actually was wrong with the skeleton: a bone disease. The cause of which might have came from infection, genetics, or malnourishment. Again, this was a hundred thousand years ago, so I would have to assume he was following the Paleo Diet.

So now we have 2 cases of bone disease and tooth decay in a subject field where the body of evidence couldn’t even fill the classroom in which you’re learning all of this. This leads me to another point. If you believe a Paleo Diet is a cure-all, then you’d natural come to the conclusion that this is only 2 cases and doesn’t amount to much. It’s not enough to sway the mind of a hardcore fan. However, when you look at how little evidence there is to go on, and you see nothing but infections, bone diseases, and tons of broken bones and fractures, it might lead someone to think that their malnourishment might have played a part in this.

Not to discount the Paleo Diet entirely, it does sort of romanticize the life of a caveman. It was nothing but meat and killing all day long, right? Sounds like Rambo. Sounds awesome! Fact is, they lived very hard, torturous lives that no one today would want to emulate. Their diet was feast or famine. Most often famine. During the famine, they were still nomads. They still had to follow the herd and continue to hunt while entirely malnourished. This would account for their brittle structures. When an animal was killed, it could only feed a tribe briefly. Meat went bad then just as it goes bad today. They, most likely, ate more plants than meat if you averaged it up between the feasts and the famine that followed.

So the Paleo Diet really comes down to one basic point. When Cro Magnon split and went either west into Europe or east into Asia, which diet sounds more healthful? The nomads that went west starved. When they ate meat it was a feast. Shortly thereafter they were starving again. Reduced to digging holes in the dirt to chew on a rotten root just for some sort of sustenance.
Then there’s the nomads who went east into fruitful Asia where plant life was in abundance. There was a constant assortment of fresh food from both plants (mainly plants) and animals. This would be a carbohydrate predominant diet. Since this was the paleolithic era, would this not be included into a Paleo Diet plan? All fruits, vegetables, and animal sources of Asia to go along with the roots and meats of western Europe?

There is no evidence that hints at any sort of longevity connected to nomads that went on to conquer Europe. The evidence is empirical. Archeologists are looking at today’s humans and making an obvious statement. If we ate what they did then, we’d be healthier today. They do not take into account the strenuous lives of the nomads. They simply take the good factors, blow them way out of proportion, then make bold claims for or against them. This does not provide any evidence that alternative food sources, outside of what Paleo followers consume, are in any way inferior to a Paleo Diet.

So back to the main point already posted on this thread. Before someone can claim something is superior, they must provide proof that everything else is inferior. It’s like food racism.

[MrMisanthrope]

Excellent post.

I agree wholeheartedly with your criticism of the speculative nature of everything to do with paleo dieting.

[emin3m4ever]

This thread is to house an ongoing debate between myself and anyone about the validity of all facets of the so-called "paleolithic diet" as defined loosely by the findings of Weston Price and Vilhjalmur Stefansson. The diet is comprised almost entirely of the flesh, skin, marrow and organs of wild-caught seafood, animals from a wild condition (grass fed, free roaming, etcetera), and a minimal vegetable component comprised mainly of root vegetables, the soft shoots of freshly sprouted plants and some other readily harvestable plant goods.

Let the debate begin.

cool i like that alot thanks

[joelash302]

Sir, I accept your challenge. I have also done you the dignifying favor of removing most of the 4chan lingo from your post.

Cro-magnon man had an average height of 1.8 meters and up, with the females being around 1.65 meters (1, 2), with a larger cranial capacity than that of modern man (2, 3). This larger cranial capacity is reflected in their relatively sophisticated art, culture and non-sexist burial practices (3). I am also pleased to report that Cro Magnon man was thoroughly jacked and robust with thicker bones and stronger musculature than moderners (1, 3, 4) as a result of close quarters struggles for existence against horrifyingly powerful animal opponents equivalent to sci fi monsters (4). This is also largely due to the fact that they ate a diet comprised almost entirely of meat (5).

Cro Magnon people were tall jacked permafrost dwelling space marines that chased down animals the size of busses and hated them to death with spears and hatchets (3, 4). Due to the fact that they were jacked snow jedi, equivalent to an entire race of Jon Pall Sigmarssons (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), they were not satisfied with simply murdering and eating every quadruped they could get their hands on, and so are credited with exterminating the neanderthal race as well (5).

On point 1, you have been defeated unless you can do something about your paucity of citation. Points two and three, I'm not entirely familiar with. I'd like to see more information about the importance of gastrointestinal tract microbial profiles; I've encountered some references to the paleolithic diet changing GI microbial profiles but at the same time I have not looked into this variable's implications in health and robustitude. Please enlighten me to this. Also, please clarify what your point is with the statement that different environments cause different genes to be expressed. I know that to be true, but I don't know *which* genes you're referring to or how it changes anything I've said.

=======================

1. 1989, "Human Evolution, An Illustrated Guide," Peter Andres & Chris Stringer, p. 46
2. 2006, "The Nature of the World and of Man," H. H. Newman
3. 2006, "The Secret History of the World and How To Get Out Alive," Laura Knight-Jadczyk, p. 233 (note: this source cites its primary literature right under the exact passage where the info is stated. Joyous!)
4. University of Washington (9/23/03) "Bones from Frend cave show Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon hunted same prey." Science Daily.
5. 2003, "Whither The Neanderthals," R. G. Klein, Science, 1525-1527 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1525.short


This reads like you pulled it straight from chaos and pain.

[FreeWorkoutPlan]

Hi Guys,

I've noticed there seems to be some interest in Paleo on this forum and I'm sure those interested will be aware of Richard Nikoley of FreeTheAnimal.com

I interviewed Richard a few weeks back and asked him a few short questions about paleo, his intermittent fasting experiment, how he works out and how he lost over 60 lbs.

For those that missed it on his blog you can find the interview here:

http://www.free-workout-plans-for-busy-people.com/free-workout-plans-interview-free-the-animal-richard-nikoley.html

Enjoy.

[MSmith19]

What about the argument of frequent intolerance and allergy/sensitivities to grains and dairy?

[TheDudemeister]

Nevermind that. What about the fossil record? Every bone dug up keeps showing brittle skeleton after brittle skeleton. Any diet purported to treat bone disease and tooth decay based upon a diet that can’t even be confirmed is extremely misleading. The fact is, the fossil record indicates nothing but bone disease and tooth decay. To try to somehow say that today this diet will treat these problems is pretty far reaching because it didn’t treat them then.

I have a few questions, myself. Misanthrope, you mention being pre-med, or something along those lines. You have a desire to better the lives of others. You claim that people who eat terribly have terrible health. That seems to be agreeable no matter who you talk to. You then advocate that there is an alternative to most health concerns relating malnourishment. This is no different than anyone arguing for any fad diet...be it Paleo, ketogenic, or the newest fad, IIFYM. The point’s the same, the message is somehow different and every side is divided like it’s the Civil War all over.

Since you advocate that a diet of all meat can treat and prevent tooth decay and degenerative bone diseases, how do you get enough calcium to offset the massive amount of phosphorus present in the meat that paleo-man ate? There’s an abundance of phosphorus in red meat. The body cannot digest phosphorus without a like amount of calcium. It stands to reason that a person deficient in calcium who consumes the average amount of red meat will end up with a mouthful of dentures and a brittle skeleton because in a deficiency, the body will pull calcium from bones and teeth just to be able to eliminate the phosphorus from the meat. There’s leading authorities that claim that the phosphoric acid in sodas are causing tooth decay and bone degeneration. So the question is: how does an all meat diet address this flaw?

As a point of bone disease, you use the animal kingdom for representation. You claim that animals don’t have the tooth decay or bone disease we deal with because they eat meat. What about breeds of dogs that are known for having hip displascia? Or breeds of dogs whose teeth fall out as they age? It can’t be dietary because you can feed a schnauzer Purina One and a German Shepard Purine One, yet the German Shepard will still be prone to bone problems while the schnauzer will not. The point is, the disease isn’t unilateral regardless of dog food or brand of. It’s not what they’re eating. The same goes for dog breeds who lose their teeth. Or Boston Terriers that develop cataracts. How does an all meat diet address diseases that seem to prevail in some breeds regardless of nutrition?

The main question is: how does a Paleo Diet address these issues when the fossil record shows that those eating the diet were suffering from those very illnesses? How was it non-beneficial then, yet a supercure today? I only ask because we, as people, do not seem to be fully carnivorous.

[MrMisanthrope]

Go back and read the thread, good sir. I realized in the last page or so that what I preach actually has nothing to do with the speculative bullcrap associated with the canonical paleo diet, and is actually something else entirely. I clearly have indicated as much, and even removed reference to "paleo dieting" from my signature to reflect this realization.

Whatever your criticisms of paleo are, I'm sure they're all valid because most paleo dieters are complete fools, and their understanding of "natural food we evolved to eat" does not typically extend beyond "plants and animals," including grain fed store meat and GMO strawberries among other travesties and civilized poisons.

There are exceptions, and within the paleo diet itself there actually is an elite subsect that believes and practices as I do, but in reality what I have discovered is based on well documented studies of groups of extant savages in relatively recent history and requires absolutely no support from any archaeological digs or isotope analysis of cro magnon s**t logs or any of that nonsense.

[chickeneater]

subbed

[lostinco]

Heres a short excerpt of why I love the paleo diet. Regardless of the said health benefits the reason I love the paleo diet is because at the end of the day, if I stay within the food groups: i.e. meat, veggies, fats, some fruit, and some starch, I know that I can stay fairly lean by simply eating those foods and eating till im full and comfortable. I started the paleo diet to lose weight before i ever even knew about macros calories etc, and it worked for me. I don't want to have to count calories for the rest of my life and i'm sure you all dont want too either. The paleo diet is something i can follow long term that will leave me satisfied, lean and happy.

[ZenBowman]

Good thread, amazed to see how defensively and emotionally people have reacted to it. I don't eat this way (I include vegetables and legumes with meat/fish, as well as some occasional fruit), but it should be clear from studying ancient societies, or even indigenous societies that currently live more or less that they did, that it is possible to be healthy with an all-meat diet. For example, the Inuit get their yearly supply of Vitamin C from the skin of the narwhal:

g7NjYR-y_pI

Ironic that the intro to this video had a McDonalds ad. What is even more stupendous is that some commenters on this video are actually angry at the Inuit. BRB flying across the globe drinking imported coffee and complaining about people hunting locally.

I would point out that it may not be universal, your own personal dietary best practices will depend highly on the region that your ancestors came from and how they ate. But you already know that.

BTW, there is a stunning narwhal hunt featured in Human Planet, where the Inuit use traditional methods (a kayak and a spear) - absolutely surreal.

[RazziRazwell]

Genuine science always admits to much uncertainty and vast unknowns. Always remember this.

The certitude by which Mark Sisson et al speak is ridiculous. Genuine science does not permit such extravagances. ALL food is a minefield through which we carefully tread. VARIETY is most important nutritional concept- MAJOR VARIETY.

Science just does not know nearly enough yet about nutrition for the claims of Mark Sisson et al. There are many nutrients not even identified yet by science , let alone undertanding how they all interact synergystically to produce health. It is extremely complex.

Real, genuine anthropologists are NOT making the claims of "paleo marketing Internet gurus". "Paleo diets " have a lot of conjecture but no hard evidence.

There is ,however, MUCH valid, reputable , authentic science from world renowned experts backing diets similar to the way Okinawans eat. We do not know that much, but we know this much. Their diets are LOADED with phytochemicals, micronutrients and fiber, which humans thrive on. They also have VARIETY. More research is needed of course.


Genuine science is a work in progress. The discoveries ( and subsequent gained scientific knowledge) is like "peeling an onion", rather than "opening a box".

Oh, and by the way, The Weston Price Foundation are a complete bunch of INVALID , agenda driven QUACKS who completely MISREPRESENT Dr. William Castelli. They love to quote him. Well, I have a qoute for those quacks and their supporters. Here is a VIDEO of Dr. William Castelli himself and he does NOT support their way of eating. He leans toward vegetarianism or flexitarianism. Listen closely at 39: 00 and on . Do a Google search of " Dr. William Castelli Charlie Rose". You will have the proof he said this.

We have learned a lot more since 1997, and Dr. Steven Nissen points this out on a video lecture at my blog. But the HDL hypothesis is solid. We are learning it has more to do with HDL FUNCTION than amount per se. This partly explains why some people with HDL levels of only 25 are free of coronary artery disease.

WAPF has ALOT of explaining to do........

WAPF and Mark Sisson are NOT at all scientific authorities on ANYTHING. He is a LAYMAN. As such he MUST realize his own LIMITATIONS.

Mark Sisson et al have A LOT of stupid people fooled and have built a rich empire off it. HOLD ON TO YOUR WALLETS!


Alan Aragon is right that the " Paleo Diet" is QUACKERY, and I support him. It has no valid, reputable, science behind it, only Internet guru marketing and conjecture.

The UNKNOWNS about nutrition are FAR GREATER than the knowns. We have MUUUUUCH to learn.

Look toward genuine science for your information sources, not Mark Sisson et al. Only on the Internet could these people sound like a scientific authority ........ Thankfully in the real world these quacks would never have any valid voice at all.



Thankfully.

[TERMplus]

^well, mark sisson et al do make idiotic claims, but some ideas are supported by science, and i guess you should look at the ideas of someone in the scientific community individually because they may have an agenda, but some of their ideas may also be backed by science.

oh, and i'd like to mention that i admire your interpretation of the scientific method. ha, it truly is wonderful seeing someone who is actually open-minded and willing to even refute his own beliefs--that's what science is all about.

also to op: vitamin a is found in quite high amounts in beef liver, so i don't know why someone would need to consume fish eyes. do you have any specific source for the vitamin c content of moose adrenal gland? i'm guessing that a diet that supplies optimal macronutrition, micronutrition (as well as trace minerals, ...) is what we're all after; maybe, if someone were to eat only meat he could reach his dietary goals -- but i'm not so sure about not varying my food intake; the idea of eating only meat does not appeal to me on a psychological basis, and i'd rather vary my food intake for health purposes (i know you may dispute this, but it's just what i'm after--i'd like to read more articles on a meat-only diet if you can reference some, op). by the way, on some sites i've seen that they advocated a diet composed of meat and some root vegetables. do you advocate such a diet or a meat-only diet?

[MrMisanthrope]

^well, mark sisson et al do make idiotic claims, but some ideas are supported by science, and i guess you should look at the ideas of someone in the scientific community individually because they may have an agenda, but some of their ideas may also be backed by science.

oh, and i'd like to mention that i admire your interpretation of the scientific method. ha, it truly is wonderful seeing someone who is actually open-minded and willing to even refute his own beliefs--that's what science is all about.

also to op: vitamin a is found in quite high amounts in beef liver, so i don't know why someone would need to consume fish eyes. do you have any specific source for the vitamin c content of moose adrenal gland? i'm guessing that a diet that supplies optimal macronutrition, micronutrition (as well as trace minerals, ...) is what we're all after; maybe, if someone were to eat only meat he could reach his dietary goals -- but i'm not so sure about not varying my food intake; the idea of eating only meat does not appeal to me on a psychological basis, and i'd rather vary my food intake for health purposes (i know you may dispute this, but it's just what i'm after--i'd like to read more articles on a meat-only diet if you can reference some, op). by the way, on some sites i've seen that they advocated a diet composed of meat and some root vegetables. do you advocate such a diet or a meat-only diet?

If you still think a vegetable portion is necessary then you have not read the Stefansson source.

[SDC77]

A good rule of thumb is that if the Cro$$fit community embraces it, it has about as much credibility as someone claiming a sighting of Elvis raping Bigfoot in the middle of a crop circle formed by an alien spaceship.

[Zunehmer]

You guys read the former paleonu blog?

ww.archevore.com/

can't post real links yet :-(

i think it sums it up very nicely... I really liked the blog, stopped reading it but this guy actually has a lot of evidence and also reviews some studies.

He is not one of these paleo crazies that for example say honey is healthy just because it was there. But theres clearly lot of paleo influence.

[sasha481]

This diet presumes that modern people are exactly the same as people who lived thousands of years from now with the same nutritional needs, which is doubtful.

[Jimmy Smith]

All of the science behind the paleo diet is limited at best because it's not direct observation of the population. There's a HUGE selection bias when we look at hunter gathers. Yes they are free of modern disease but it's just a observation.

The paleo folks are excellent at screaming "you're wrong" on observational studies but they use the same logic to justify their intentions. These observational studies do not establish cause and effect.

I hate when people say the paleo lifestyle is better because since they just ate meat, nuts, fruits that they didn't suffer from the diseases of today. So you HAVE to eat this way to avoid today's diseases.

That is a logical fallacy...

That SHOULD be used to generate hypothesis that are then tested but it does NOT establish a direct connection or more importantly, cause and effect.

So since our ancestors didn't consume certain foods that means that we should not consume those same foods. There are numerous examples throughout history where a species found a food that they never ate and adapted to it.

We evolved to where we are today because our ancestors at a point started eating meat.

Just because humans aren't as adapted to bread as they are to beef doesn't mean we shouldn't eat it. There's nothing wrong with the paleo diet but people need to recognize that the data is limited.

We are also assuming that what are ancestors did was correct.

[Tybalt71]

All of the science behind the paleo diet is limited at best because it's not direct observation of the population. There's a HUGE selection bias when we look at hunter gathers. Yes they are free of modern disease but it's just a observation.

The paleo folks are excellent at screaming "you're wrong" on observational studies but they use the same logic to justify their intentions. These observational studies do not establish cause and effect.

I hate when people say the paleo lifestyle is better because since they just ate meat, nuts, fruits that they didn't suffer from the diseases of today. So you HAVE to eat this way to avoid today's diseases.

That is a logical fallacy...

That SHOULD be used to generate hypothesis that are then tested but it does NOT establish a direct connection or more importantly, cause and effect.

So since our ancestors didn't consume certain foods that means that we should not consume those same foods. There are numerous examples throughout history where a species found a food that they never ate and adapted to it.

We evolved to where we are today because our ancestors at a point started eating meat.

Just because humans aren't as adapted to bread as they are to beef doesn't mean we shouldn't eat it. There's nothing wrong with the paleo diet but people need to recognize that the data is limited.

We are also assuming that what are ancestors did was correct.


"We are also assuming that what are ancestors did was correct"
Really? No I mean Really? Umm what other options choice did they have? well they managed to survive thousands of years on something. It was about survival, scavenging etc, even due to certain climates certain foods i.e berries, nuts etc were seasonal and perhaps went months even with out those types of foods and well i guess that leaves meat???? there only real option or choice, hmmm maybe sabre tooth tiger today, next week maybe we'll get a mammoth...... oh and use the complete animal Hyde, fur, bones etc for clothing, tools, etc.

[liammccarthy]

"We are also assuming that what are ancestors did was correct"
Really? No I mean Really? Umm what other options choice did they have? well they managed to survive thousands of years on something. It was about survival, scavenging etc, even due to certain climates certain foods i.e berries, nuts etc were seasonal and perhaps went months even with out those types of foods and well i guess that leaves meat???? there only real option or choice, hmmm maybe sabre tooth tiger today, next week maybe we'll get a mammoth...... oh and use the complete animal Hyde, fur, bones etc for clothing, tools, etc.
You've gone full paleo-tard man
Don't you know you should never go full paleo-tard?

[Tybalt71]

You've gone full paleo-tard man
Don't you know you should never go full paleo-tard?

lol, Touche!, not my fault though, it's genetic, passed on from generation to generation traced back to my paleo ancestors.-Ty

[Sothron]

I posted this in the O35 section on a thread regarding the same subject and thought it might be of interest to some here:

A few observations and random thoughts, for what they're worth, from a farming/ranching perspective:

One of the problems with attempting to analyze the diets of millenia past is that what we call "meat", "vegetable", or "grain" is very different today than it was millenia ago. Different species of animal, much more evolution and breeding of plant seed. As well as the GM element (controversial, I know, so I won't speak to much to that in this post).

If we look at the red meat example, we can compare:
- corn-fed beef
- pastured (grass fed) beef
- venison with access to corn fields/feeders, soy crops, etc
- woodland venison

If you butcher a fresh cow vs a deer, the first thing you notice is the amazing lack of fat content on the deer flesh compared to the thick marbling and heavy fat content of the beef. I'm not talking a lean 'cut' of beef here, but rather an overall comparison of the animal. Naturally, we're comparing a domesticated livestock animal vs a wild animal. One stands in a field all day and eats. The other spends its day looking for food & evading predators. Huge difference. So any 'paleo' diet that relies on domesticated livestock should be considered as suspect (at least relative to what I understand is the premise of the paleo diet -- it may not be suspect generally; I'm speaking relative to the premise).

Further, we can make comparisons between corn-fed and grass-fed beef. Not only in fat content/marbling/texture/color [you also see these differences in pastured vs industrial corn-fed chicken) but in terms what the animal has ingested its whole life and what it passes on to us in terms of nutriet content and quality. I remain unconvinced that we fully understand the effects of a corn-based diet in livestock animals (including farmed fish). Anecdotally, however, I would certainly attribute the poor state of health the large waistlines of Americans to a diet high in processed foods (which are in many cases synonomous with foods high in corn derivatives.) Obviously sedentary lifestyles do not help. This same dynamic can be seen as "Western" diets make their way East - to Eastern Europe and even to Asia, where we see the corresponding increases in health & weight problems.

We can then look to game populations. White tail deer are a good example. Certainly, there are still woodland, acorn-fed deer out there. But increasingly, white tail populations are becoming reliant on crops as a major food source (primarily corn and soy, and primarily GM). We can only hypothesize about the long-term impact to the deer population reliant on this diet. So far, in many cases, the effects have been positive in the short term: increased population, higher growth rates, etc. Long term it's anyone's guess. But the point relative to the Paleo (and other such) diets is that a game animal today is very different than a game animal 100 years ago, much less 1,000's of years ago. It's diet is entirely different, and as such the fat content and nutrient content/mix are also different.

The corn itself is even very different that it was 100 years ago, much less 1,000. But that's another story.

This is not to say that paleolithic man did not eat fatty meat. Certain species in certain climates store more fat than others. The example used a few pages back was that of the buffalo and the high fat consumption of Native Americans. But I would be surprised if their fat consumption was as high as many think. Buffalo is a much leaner meat than domestic cattle. Further, the Native American diet, even on the plains, would likely have included plenty of venison and antelope - both very lean meats - as well as river fish.

These differences make direct comparisons very difficult, though not impossible. In assessing the impact of a 'paleo'-type diet in the modern West, these are some things one may want to consider.

[DeathTaco]

The only arguments AGAINST non-paleo diets are always pro-meats, pro-fat, pro-fruit studies. That when put together, paints a great picture for Paleo.

Ok ok, but carbs are bad guys. Look at our modern society. Oh wait, most (if not all from I can recall) studies involving carbs (of agricultural means) are always about carbs in high amounts, carbs in people with pre-existing conditions, carbs in relation to high fat (trans/sat) diets. But you hardly (if ever) see a study that examines the affects of a moderate carb intake, or an inverse carb:fat ratio as is often followed on this site or promoted in many diets (carb cycling, medium fat/moderate carbs).

I don't really care if you want to do Paleo...at heart there is nothing wrong with a diet balanced on Macro/Micro rich whole foods. But if you're going to tell us that OUR diet is WRONG, then you must show proof of the HARM of our diet, not of the benefits of yours.

I doubt anyone is going to tell you that the statistics of the average american are wrong...but realize that the average activity level, frequency, intensity and diet of people on this board do not reflect most average americans (or similar societies).



Cliffs:
-Show us we're wrong, not that you're right.
-It seems all arguments focus on content, not content in relation to quanity or ratios.

[KLMARB]

The only arguments AGAINST non-paleo diets are always pro-meats, pro-fat, pro-fruit studies. That when put together, paints a great picture for Paleo. Ok ok, but carbs are bad guys. Look at our modern society. Oh wait, most (if not all from I can recall) studies involving carbs (of agricultural means) are always about carbs in high amounts, carbs in people with pre-existing conditions, carbs in relation to high fat (trans/sat) diets. But you hardly (if ever) see a study that examines the affects of a moderate carb intake, or an inverse carb:fat ratio as is often followed on this site or promoted in many diets (carb cycling, medium fat/moderate carbs). I don't really care if you want to do Paleo...at heart there is nothing wrong with a diet balanced on Macro/Micro rich whole foods. But if you're going to tell us that OUR diet is WRONG, then you must show proof of the HARM of our diet, not of the benefits of yours. I doubt anyone is going to tell you that the statistics of the average american are wrong...but realize that the average activity level, frequency, intensity and diet of people on this board do not reflect most average americans (or similar societies). Cliffs: -Show us we're wrong, not that you're right. -It seems all arguments focus on content, not content in relation to quanity or ratios.



OK, here you go: http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/grains-leg/grains-legumes-1a.shtml

[BRO_RESULTS]

Well, the longer I live, the more I realize that the human body is a tremendously adaptable machine, capable of making a lot of lifestyles doable. My priorities are tooth decay, diabetes prevention, cardiovascular health and robustness in old age, so this business works for me.

I agree with you. It's silly to look at humanity, such a cosmopolitan creature, and assign to it the notion that there is precisely one way for them to be healthy when all of the evidence in the world indicates otherwise. I do what I do now mostly because it leaves me feeling good and healthy, and because my teeth are strong and free of decay when I eat this way.

You're 24, you jackass.

[AMonkey]

I think a paleo diet would be a pretty big improvement for most of the Western population but I don't think its ideal. Some of the advocating for organic and criticism of dairy doesn't seem entirely strong.

[Animalwannabe]

I agree with Paleo if your body is made for it. Evolution does happen. Sometimes it skips around and most of the time people cannot do Paleo because their body is accultured to carbohydrates and vegetables due to mothers at a young age. I can't do a paleo diet because my dopamine receptors and my brain will act up without carbohydrates but I have good reason. I am strong Italian/Japanese/Native American/Irish/German. Irish have been big on potatoes for the last 300 years, Japanese have eaten rice since the beginning of time, Italians love their pasta and Native Americans are big on berries and corn. German is probably one of the more meat heavy groups in my national gene pool. I still eat about a lb or two of meat and I still eat the fat on the meat and try to keep my fat and protein intake a little higher then carbs. If I do eat too many carbs I get diabetes effects, if I eat too little carbs I get sluggish and my body can't flip metabolic rates from Glycosis to Beta-Oxidation so Keto really isn't my best friend here either. If I can't Keto I can't Paleo.

Cliff notes: Evolution does happen. Look at your bloodline to find your normal food intake and what your body is geared for. Its what I did after trying everything from Paleo to Neolithic to Modern.

[KLMARB]

I agree with Paleo if your body is made for it. Evolution does happen. Sometimes it skips around and most of the time people cannot do Paleo because their body is accultured to carbohydrates and vegetables due to mothers at a young age. I can't do a paleo diet because my dopamine receptors and my brain will act up without carbohydrates but I have good reason. I am strong Italian/Japanese/Native American/Irish/German. Irish have been big on potatoes for the last 300 years, Japanese have eaten rice since the beginning of time, Italians love their pasta and Native Americans are big on berries and corn. German is probably one of the more meat heavy groups in my national gene pool. I still eat about a lb or two of meat and I still eat the fat on the meat and try to keep my fat and protein intake a little higher then carbs. If I do eat too many carbs I get diabetes effects, if I eat too little carbs I get sluggish and my body can't flip metabolic rates from Glycosis to Beta-Oxidation so Keto really isn't my best friend here either. If I can't Keto I can't Paleo.

Cliff notes: Evolution does happen. Look at your bloodline to find your normal food intake and what your body is geared for. Its what I did after trying everything from Paleo to Neolithic to Modern.

For you, I'd suggest its more of an issue of adaptation. I'd argue that what you describe are resistance issues, rather than a biochemical inability for you to function well within gluconeogenesis and ketosis. Myself, it took several weeks for me to adapt, as my resistance (insulin, leptin, etc.) levels dropped, and I was able to function normally.

[lookiamapollo]

This thread is to house an ongoing debate between myself and anyone about the validity of all facets of the so-called "paleolithic diet" as defined loosely by the findings of Weston Price and Vilhjalmur Stefansson. The diet is comprised almost entirely of the flesh, skin, marrow and organs of wild-caught seafood, animals from a wild condition (grass fed, free roaming, etcetera), and a minimal vegetable component comprised mainly of root vegetables, the soft shoots of freshly sprouted plants and some other readily harvestable plant goods.

Let the debate begin.

debates are stupid in general, they accomplish nothing.

[egoneo]

This thread was so entertaining

[HallucaNIC]

I have to cite only two sources to prove most of my claims. These sources are quite extensive.

1: Weston A. Price, "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration," 1939.

Orthodontist Weston A. Price launches a global survey of nutrition, comparing primitive groups to modern groups, comparing general health, facial bone formation and disease prevalence with the presence of naturally occurring high fat foods chiefly from animal sources. His findings clearly show a strong correlation - people who eat a fat/meat heavy diet have nearly no disease and almost zero tooth decay (fractions of a percent of all teeth surveyed in most groups, including exhumed skulls). People who eat modern western diets have facial deformities, crooked teeth, tuberculosis, diabetes, heart issues and a host of other degenerative problems.

2: W.S. McClellan, E.F. DuBois, "Clinical Calorimetry XLV: Prolonged Meat Diets With a Study of Kidney Function and Ketosis," 1930.

Summary from McClellan & DuBois:

1. Two men lived on an exclusive meat diet for one year, and another for 10 days. The relative amounts of lean and fat meat ingested were left to the instinctive choice of the individual.
2. The protein content varied from 100 to 140 grams, the fat from 200 to 300 grams, the carbohydrates (derived entirely from the meat) from 7 to 12 grams, and the fuel value from 2000 to 3100 calories.
3. At the end of the year, the subjects were mentally alert, physically active, and showed no specific physical changes in any system of the body.
4. In the prolonged test, the blood pressure of one man remained constant, the systolic pressure of the other decreased 20 mm and the diastolic remained constant.
5. Vitamin deficiencies did not appear.
6. Kidney function revealed no damage.
7. In these subjects, the clinical observations and laboratory studies gave no evidence that any ill effects had occurred from the prolonged use of the exclusive meat diet.

Those two statements right there prove almost everything I would need to prove, other than that grass fed and wild meats are the only meats that contain vitamins and minerals on the levels I assert are necessary - things I have sources lined up and ready to prove.


Correlational research does not allow for conclusive causation. Current deformities and diseases may have nothing to do with types of food, but may be because of pollution, unsanitary conditions, or a million other things (No causation).

[Edwardballow]

I think it's strange too. I admit paleo dieting sounds extreme because it tends to be so anti-modernist. Until you get used to the idea, it sounds like something you'd expect to be done by some kind of cult out in the woods somewhere.

In terms of macronutrients, it's identical to ketogenic dieting - something this website has a whole subforum for. The only difference is the advocated source of these nutrients, and claims about the importance of certain micronutrients and their densities in different foods.

I think it's unusual too. I confess paleo diets appears to be excessive because it tends to be so anti-modernist. Until you get used to the concept, it appears to be like something you'd anticipate to be done by some type of conspiracy out in the timber somewhere.

In conditions of macronutrients, it's similar to ketogenic diets - something this web page has a whole subforum for. The only change is the recommended resource of these nutritional value, and statements about the value of certain micronutrients and their densities in different meals.

[TIUjoe]

like I've said this isn't my religion here I just think it's something to look into and be considered. I guess I ended up getting put into the position of defending it. anyway there is the blood sugar regulating benefits of cutting out the grains and dairy as well as the inflammatory properties of these things.

True.

[kaleida]

I started the paleo diet in December 2009. After 1 month my acne went away, and the dark circles under my eyes went away too ... after 3 months I felt twice as much energy, and I felt wide awake with less sleep. So I started experimenting to see which food had been messing up my skin and making me tired. It was gluten. So now I'm really strict about avoiding gluten but not very strict about avoiding other "non-paleo" foods like potatoes and rice and beans etc...those don't seem to harm me, the worst they do is make me kind of bloated.

[chuck2334]

I'll take the grass fed, free range, etc. food. That's just like mountain dog eating. Raw plants? Of course. But I don't know about the organs. If you look at a liver of an animal you've got a ton of iron, but also a TON of cholesterol. Organs just don't seem like something I'd want to eat.

[wrkoutfrq]

I'll take the grass fed, free range, etc. food. That's just like mountain dog eating. Raw plants? Of course. But I don't know about the organs. If you look at a liver of an animal you've got a ton of iron, but also a TON of cholesterol. Organs just don't seem like something I'd want to eat.

organ meats can be great sources of protein... dietary cholesterol only contributes to your body cholesterol by ~15-25%... the vast majority is produced in your own liver

[chuck2334]

organ meats can be great sources of protein... dietary cholesterol only contributes to your body cholesterol by ~15-25%... the vast majority is produced in your own liver

And isn't cholesterol a repair agent? I'm not too sure, but aren't the LDL's good cholesterol and HDL's bad? Or the other way around. So that would mean that the liver is actually good for you right?

[halvingmyself]

There's plenty of evidence around showing that dietary cholesterol doesn't necessary become serum cholesterol - and that it's partially genetics. The studies where dietary cholesterol was found to impact serum cholesterol and thus cardiovascular incidents was based on rabbits and has since been mainly disproved because of the way rabbits process things compared to humans!

I have been primal (which is not the same as paleo, but based on the same principles) and eating high fat (and probably high cholesterol, I wouldn't know because I don't care) since march this year.

My cholesterol beforehand (attempting to lose weight by eating traditional ideas of "healthy" - i.e. rice, stirfry, grains, bread, lean meat, egg whites):
Approx October 2011
Total: 215
Trigs: 135
HDL: 35
LDL: 155

Ratios:
Total/HDL: 6.1 (Supposed to be 4.4 or lower for women)
Trig/HDL: 3.9 (Supposed to be below 2)
LDL/HDL: 4.4 (Supposed to be below 4.3)


Recent (approx August 2012) after switching to primal/paleo clean eating - i.e. meat with fat on, whole eggs, hard cheeses, organ meats, low sugar, coconut oil etc.
Total: 200
Trigs: 80
HDL: 50
LDL: 140

Total/HDL: 4.0 (Supposed to be 4.4 or lower for women)
Trig/HDL: 1.6 (Supposed to be below 2)
LDL/HDL: 2.8 (Supposed to be below 4.3)

So, I improved in every single area! Trigs went down, HDL came up, and all my ratios are now acceptable.


A side by side comparison-
Total cholesterol went from 215 to 200
Trigs went from 135 to 80
HDL went from 35 to 50
LDL went from 155 to 140


I couldn't have asked for any better to be quite honest. I don't even really buy the validity of cholesterol corresponding to cardiovascular incidents (and there's plenty of research saying blah blah blah) band-aid hypothesis etc. BUT if good cholesterol numbers is what my doctor/insurance company wants to see to make them feel better then great, cause now mine are sweeeeet as and I am going to get them retested in about a month and I'm willing to bet they're now even more awesome :)

Also as a side note my hba1c in October last year was 6.4 (pre-diabetic) and it's now 5.5 (normal) or something - so that's also wonderful.

Of course these are just my own n=1 results and everyone is different etc etc but I just wish that by telling people my story, more people will consider it. Not every lifestyle works for every person - so if you have been trying the traditional "healthy" wholegrains approach for years and can't make progress (like I did for over 4 years) then maybe give it a go! What do you really have to lose??

[HipsterPat]

There's plenty of evidence around showing that dietary cholesterol doesn't necessary become serum cholesterol - and that it's partially genetics. The studies where dietary cholesterol was found to impact serum cholesterol and thus cardiovascular incidents was based on rabbits and has since been mainly disproved because of the way rabbits process things compared to humans!

I have been primal (which is not the same as paleo, but based on the same principles) and eating high fat (and probably high cholesterol, I wouldn't know because I don't care) since march this year.

My cholesterol beforehand (attempting to lose weight by eating traditional ideas of "healthy" - i.e. rice, stirfry, grains, bread, lean meat, egg whites):
Approx October 2011
Total: 215
Trigs: 135
HDL: 35
LDL: 155

Ratios:
Total/HDL: 6.1 (Supposed to be 4.4 or lower for women)
Trig/HDL: 3.9 (Supposed to be below 2)
LDL/HDL: 4.4 (Supposed to be below 4.3)


Recent (approx August 2012) after switching to primal/paleo clean eating - i.e. meat with fat on, whole eggs, hard cheeses, organ meats, low sugar, coconut oil etc.
Total: 200
Trigs: 80
HDL: 50
LDL: 140

Total/HDL: 4.0 (Supposed to be 4.4 or lower for women)
Trig/HDL: 1.6 (Supposed to be below 2)
LDL/HDL: 2.8 (Supposed to be below 4.3)

So, I improved in every single area! Trigs went down, HDL came up, and all my ratios are now acceptable.


A side by side comparison-
Total cholesterol went from 215 to 200
Trigs went from 135 to 80
HDL went from 35 to 50
LDL went from 155 to 140


I couldn't have asked for any better to be quite honest. I don't even really buy the validity of cholesterol corresponding to cardiovascular incidents (and there's plenty of research saying blah blah blah) band-aid hypothesis etc. BUT if good cholesterol numbers is what my doctor/insurance company wants to see to make them feel better then great, cause now mine are sweeeeet as and I am going to get them retested in about a month and I'm willing to bet they're now even more awesome :)

Also as a side note my hba1c in October last year was 6.4 (pre-diabetic) and it's now 5.5 (normal) or something - so that's also wonderful.

Of course these are just my own n=1 results and everyone is different etc etc but I just wish that by telling people my story, more people will consider it. Not every lifestyle works for every person - so if you have been trying the traditional "healthy" wholegrains approach for years and can't make progress (like I did for over 4 years) then maybe give it a go! What do you really have to lose??

Cheese isn't considered paleo, unless it's breastmilk cheese... I don't think that cavemen domesticated animals like goats or cows, let along know how to ferment milk. Lactose is a sugar that only through modern evolution (the last 1000 years), we have become able to digest after weaning, where lactase (the lactose digesting enzyme) used to only appear in babies, and still is true in (less evolved) lactose intolerant people... Also no refined sugar is paleo. Even whole grains aren't all paleo. Wheat is not paleo, as wheat wasn't grown until ~4000 years ago. Millions of people are gluten (wheat sugar) allergic or sensitive, as we haven't evolved to eat wheat also.

Just trying to help. The paleo diet is awesome! You get to stuff yourself and still lose weight..

[halvingmyself]

Cheese isn't considered paleo, unless it's breastmilk cheese... I don't think that cavemen domesticated animals like goats or cows, let along know how to ferment milk. Lactose is a sugar that only through modern evolution (the last 1000 years), we have become able to digest after weaning, where lactase (the lactose digesting enzyme) used to only appear in babies, and still is true in (less evolved) lactose intolerant people... Also no refined sugar is paleo. Even whole grains aren't all paleo. Wheat is not paleo, as wheat wasn't grown until ~4000 years ago. Millions of people are gluten (wheat sugar) allergic or sensitive, as we haven't evolved to eat wheat also.

Just trying to help. The paleo diet is awesome! You get to stuff yourself and still lose weight..

If you look at my post again you'll see I'm not paleo ;)

And I eat zero wheat or grain. I think you need to reread my post maybe :)