The Paleolithic Diet

[LitNetIsGreat]

http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html

Thoughts on the 'Paleolithic diet' as above? Do you think it is a good idea to follow it? It seems to make sense to cut out sugary junk food etc, as always, but can potatoes/pasta/rice be 'bad' for you? I thought carbs like that were a good thing especially prior to exercise? Also how is one supposed to live without pizza?

Extract:


For millions of years, humans and their relatives have eaten meat, fish, fowl and the leaves, roots and fruits of many plants. One big obstacle to getting more calories from the environment is the fact that many plants are inedible. Grains, beans and potatoes are full of energy but all are inedible in the raw state as they contain many toxins. There is no doubt about that- please don’t try to eat them raw, they can make you very sick.

Around 10,000 years ago, an enormous breakthrough was made- a breakthrough that was to change the course of history, and our diet, forever. This breakthrough was the discovery that cooking these foods made them edible- the heat destroyed enough toxins to render them edible. Grains include wheat, corn, barley, rice, sorghum, millet and oats. Grain based foods also include products such as flour, bread, noodles and pasta. These foods entered the menu of New Stone Age (Neolithic) man, and Paleolithic diet buffs often refer to them as Neolithic foods...

The essentials of the Paleolithic Diet are:

Eat none of the following:

· Grains- including bread, pasta, noodles

· Beans- including string beans, kidney beans, lentils, peanuts, snow-peas and peas

· Potatoes

· Dairy products

· Sugar

· Salt

Eat the following:

· Meat, chicken and fish

· Eggs

· Fruit

· Vegetables (especially root vegetables, but definitely not including potatoes or sweet potatoes)

· Nuts, eg. walnuts, brazil nuts, macadamia, almond. Do not eat peanuts (a bean) or cashews (a family of their own)

· Berries- strawberries, blueberries, raspberries etc.

Try to increase your intake of:

· Root vegetables- carrots, turnips, parsnips, rutabagas, Swedes

· Organ meats- liver and kidneys (I accept that many people find these unpalatable and won’t eat them)...


I'm glad to see that beer is not on that list.:thumbs_up

Edit::arf: From Wiki:

On the Paleolithic diet, practitioners are permitted to drink mainly water, and some advocates recommend tea as a healthy drink,[60] but alcoholic and fermented beverages are restricted from the diet.

[Jack of Hearts]

This reader prefers the speculation that the paleo diet works only as an indirect effect of reducing carbohydrates or swapping high glycemic index carbohydrates for low ones.

This is all based on the presumption that adipose tissue is facilitated by the effects of insulin; and that adipose tissue persists despite any other requirement of the organism in question (hence the direct inefficacy of exercise toward reducing said tissue).

But nutrition science is freaky. There are many who say the insulin hypothesis has been debunked. Unaware of the argument, but it's out there. This reader has enough compelling science and first hand testimony to warrant considerable confidence in the effects of eliminating carbohydrates from his diet (although the back of his mind whispers of the indirect effects of ceasing intake of high fructose corn syrup other weird crap. Eventually this becomes an epistemic dilemma of how can we know what's affecting what.)








J


EDIT: As for living without pizza... that's just not living at all.

[qimissung]

Interestingly, I just read a discussion on another site about diets like this one and the Candida diet. Someone said that the human digestive system is very adaptable. We can manage to survive on just about anything, which I think most of us know to be true.

I also read an article recently about calories and how scientist believed that all calories are equal, but one study of diets did seem to indicate that most people gain weight when carbs are added to a diet.

Having said that, the paleolithic diet is not bad; I think we just need to use common sense about eating-everything in moderation. Grains and beans are good for us,they provide energy,along with protein and veggies. We need all of them in a day.

It's the processed foods that are killing us. Cut that out, cut down on sugar, and we're good in my humble opinion.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I agree the first step to any healthy diet is to surely cut out processed junk. I'm still not sure about cutting out or reducing carbs though.

[Lokasenna]

My main concern is that the average life expectancy in the paleolithic period was 33 years. Though one presumes practitioners of the diet won't limit themselves to paleolithic medicine?

Just because it was good enough for your great-grandfather (400 times removed), doesn't mean it's going to be good for you.

[LitNetIsGreat]

My main concern is that the average life expectancy in the paleolithic period was 33 years. Though one presumes practitioners of the diet won't limit themselves to paleolithic medicine?

Just because it was good enough for your great-grandfather (400 times removed), doesn't mean it's going to be good for you.

Yes, one of the counter arguments against the claim that 'diseases of civilization' is that Paleolithic people didn't live long enough to get them, but looking at isolated tribes such 'Western diseases' appear redundant.


One of the most frequent criticisms of the Paleolithic diet is that it is unlikely that preagricultural hunter-gatherers suffered from the diseases of modern civilization simply because they did not live long enough to develop these illnesses, which are typically associated with old age.[12][17][181][182][183] According to S. Jay Olshansky and Bruce Carnes, "there is neither convincing evidence nor scientific logic to support the claim that adherence to a Paleolithic diet provides a longevity benefit."[183] In response to this argument, advocates of the paleodiet state that while Paleolithic hunter-gatherers did have a short average life expectancy, modern human populations with lifestyles resembling that of our preagricultural ancestors have little or no diseases of affluence, despite sufficient numbers of elderly.[12][184] In hunter-gatherer societies where demographic data is available, the elderly are present, but they tend to have high mortality rates and rarely survive past the age of 80, with causes of death (when known) ranging from injuries to measles and tuberculosis

I don't know about the great-grandfather x400 thing. I'm sure that the human body is not adapted to cope with endless levels of corn starch, sugary junk stuff as well though.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

I wonder if there are appreciable differences or effects between today's engineered means of food production versus the unaltered, "unspoiled" foods obtained during paleolithic period.
For example the antelope of 20,000 years ago versus the engineered diet of domesticated livestock of today.

I make an effort to include a variety of raw nuts such as almonds, walnuts, pecans and seeds in my diet.

Beer is healthy and therefore I include it in my diet.

[Shea]

I first heard about this diet when I had to go gluten free last summer. I'll probably try it sometime after my 4 year old stops being ultra picky about what he eats. It's actually a great way to eliminate possible allergens that you may not be aware of. Then you can slowly reintroduce them to see how you feel. It's incredible how much better I feel when gluten isn't running through my system, especially now that it causes so much physical pain as well. It's completely worth it to avoid pizza, though I'll get a gluten-free pizza every 2-3 months. When I first went gluten-free, after the first 3 months, I stopped craving even the gluten-free alternatives. It seems daunting to avoid your favorite foods, but I guess when you do it for medical reasons, it's really not so bad after a while.

Oh, and for the beer drinkers, it's not gluten-free, but there are gluten-free beers. I've never been a beer drinker, so I can't tell you what the difference is in taste.

[Gladys]

I was a disciple of Nathan Pritikin in the 1980's and his Spartan diet specifying low fat, low salt, and low sugars, and only complex carbohydrates. No one but no one gained weight on this. Three decades on, Pritikin seems to have got it right, except the low fat should instead have been: low saturated fat.

That The Paleolithic Diet forbids beans seems odd. Also lower GI potatoes are now available here. A diet that does not restrict red meat is rather curious. But all in all, I would score this diet 4 out of 5.

[cacian]

I misread the title for neolethic diet. I wonder they would make of this diet.
and then this made me think:
What do you call someone who does not care for diets and calories table checks, eats with the season everything from fish meat vegetables and all else is healthy and never diet?
Lost in diet?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Another point against the lack of carbs in a diet is the Mediterranean diet. It's not as if breads, pasta, pizza (and wine) ever hurt the Italians much.

[TurquoiseSunset]

I don't think the Paleolithic diet is too bad, for the reasons mentioned by other posters. Even though I read the original article about how potatoes, beans and grains have toxins and so on, I still don't see the harm in moderate amounts of those particular carb foods.

I actually follow the Mediterranean diet, in a casual way. It just seems balanced, healthy and, most importantly, fuss free. :lol:

[qimissung]

That's actually the direction I'm going in, too, TurquoiseSunset. Plus, the food's tasty. And it involves wine. :D

[TurquoiseSunset]

Exactly! How can you argue with a diet where the food's delicious and healthy and includes pasta, wine, cheese and olive oil? :D

[LitNetIsGreat]

Definitely, and I'm off to a brilliant Italian tonight!

[Clopin]

Exactly! How can you argue with a diet where the food's delicious and healthy and includes pasta, wine, cheese and olive oil? :D

Even people who don't follow the paleo diet can tell you that gluten is bad for you, and that white bread is especially problematic for your health.

Olive oil, win and cheese are healthy no matter how you slice it, in moderation of course.

[TurquoiseSunset]

Even people who don't follow the paleo diet can tell you that gluten is bad for you, and that white bread is especially problematic for your health.

Olive oil, win and cheese are healthy no matter how you slice it, in moderation of course.

Why would gluten be bad for me? I don't have celiac disease or a gluten intolerance/sensitivity or a wheat allergy. If people think they might be sensitive to gluten or if they have celiac disease sufferers in the family they should get themselves tested. The rest of us can eat wheat as far as I'm concerned.

Also, I didn't mention white bread. It's not considered part of the mediterranean diet (it's a processed food). Instead, if you eat bread you are supposed to eat whole grain. That is also the case with pasta. And rice should be brown.

[Clopin]

Why would gluten be bad for me? I don't have celiac disease or a gluten intolerance/sensitivity or a wheat allergy. If people think they might be sensitive to gluten or if they have celiac disease sufferers in the family they should get themselves tested. The rest of us can eat wheat as far as I'm concerned.

Also, I didn't mention white bread. It's not considered part of the mediterranean diet (it's a processed food). Instead, if you eat bread you are supposed to eat whole grain. That is also the case with pasta. And rice should be brown.

You're talking about something that you know nothing about (nutrition). The painful thing is that instead of asking me in a passive aggressive "I know that wheat is not bad for me" manner, you could have done some very brief research on the subject and actually learned something.

I'm not going to go out of my way to explain something to you that is scientifically very well understood and factual (which is different from a personal opinion). I'll draw an analogy with someone who is, say, an evolution denier. I don't feel like wasting my time educating you when the information is free, accessible on the internet and proven beyond reasonable doubt (making your doubt unreasonable).

[TurquoiseSunset]

You're talking about something that you know nothing about (nutrition). The painful thing is that instead of asking me in a passive aggressive "I know that wheat is not bad for me" manner, you could have done some very brief research on the subject and actually learned something.

I'm not going to go out of my way to explain something to you that is scientifically very well understood and factual (which is different from a personal opinion). I'll draw an analogy with someone who is, say, an evolution denier. I don't feel like wasting my time educating you when the information is free, accessible on the internet and proven beyond reasonable doubt (making your doubt unreasonable).

My, you're being quite the grumpasaurus about this.

Let me explain what I did after you posted the 'gluten is bad for you' post. I read your post and thought, "Well, I'm not sure I agree that gluten is bad for you (everyone), since I have always been under the impression that it is only necessary for those with celiac disease or an intolerance, to avoid it. However, my opinion is not based on facts, so maybe Clopin is right. I have to go do some research about this."

So then I did. All the articles I read said that you should avoid gluten if you have celiac disease or an intolerance. None said that you should give it up if you are gluten tolerant, just that you could if you wanted, or that you should try to limit your intake if you are going to continue consuming gluten.

Before posting this I read even more articles on the subject, just to make sure.

So maybe I’m not using that new-fangled googler machine correctly, but hey, I tried.

[Clopin]

So then I did. All the articles I read said that you should avoid gluten if you have celiac disease or an intolerance. None said that you should give it up if you are gluten tolerant, just that you could if you wanted, or that you should try to limit your intake if you are going to continue consuming gluten.

Before posting this I read even more articles on the subject, just to make sure.

So maybe I’m not using that new-fangled googler machine correctly, but hey, I tried.

How does it feel to be intellectually dishonest? To care more about "winning" an argument than about learning something? Do you feel proud that you are able to feign ignorance or willfully ignore information to win an argument online? I'm not a person you know or respect, we won't ever meet. My opinion of you means nothing, but you can't even swallow your pride for long enough to admit that you were wrong.

You obviously did not try.

[TurquoiseSunset]

How does it feel to be intellectually dishonest? To care more about "winning" an argument than about learning something? Do you feel proud that you are able to feign ignorance or willfully ignore information to win an argument online? I'm not a person you know or respect, we won't ever meet. My opinion of you means nothing, but you can't even swallow your pride for long enough to admit that you were wrong.

You obviously did not try.

^ Projection.

As for ‘Gluten – good or bad?’…let’s just agree to disagree.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm not sure about the gluten thing as well. It would be good if you could shed some light on that.

[Clopin]

No, we can agree that I am right or you can remain wrong alone.

>Simple carbs in general, specifically white bread and pasta (white pasta is featured very heavily in your idea of a Mediterranean "diet")

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-happens-to-your-body-when-you-carb-binge/#axzz25edwdVAz

>Gluten bad for everyone

https://www.drgourmet.com/askdrgourmet/gluten/craze.shtml

Now these are two of dozens of articles I found on the first two pages of a google search for key phrases like "gluten intolerance", "is gluten bad for people", "is Gluten bad for non celiacs"... etc etc. It took me four minutes. Seriously, plug those phrases into google and tell me again that you exhausted yourself in your futile attempt to find any articles that possibly supported my point of view.

And yes I'm aware that these aren't peer reviewed articles that would hold up in a weighty and serious debate. I'm really just humoring you people because you refuse to do your own research; which I have done and so, already made up my mind. If you want to remain ignorant and unhealthy, you are free to do so of course.

[Gladys]

Having an autoimmune disease myself, the impact of gluten (among a few other dietary factors) has had me wondering for some years. Trouble is, nobody's going to do the research to prove it one way or the other. And, besides, how many studies would be needed to achieve confidence? A thousand studies later and there is still active debate on the impact of dietary cholesterol and saturated fats on heart disease.

[TurquoiseSunset]

>Simple carbs in general, specifically white bread and pasta (white pasta is featured very heavily in your idea of a Mediterranean "diet")

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-happens-to-your-body-when-you-carb-binge/#axzz25edwdVAz

Yes, refined grains are bad for you because they make your blood sugar levels spike. In a previous post I said that when you eat pasta it should be whole grain, because it’s better than white pasta. This is because it contains more fibre, vitamins and minerals.

White pasta is not “featured very heavily” in the Mediterranean diet. The Mediterranean diet emphasizes: Getting plenty of exercise; Eating primarily plant-based foods, such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes and nuts; Replacing butter with healthy fats such as olive oil and canola oil; Using herbs and spices instead of salt to flavour foods; Limiting red meat to no more than a few times a month; Eating fish and poultry at least twice a week; Drinking red wine in moderation (optional). So, if you are going to consume grains in the form of pasta, it should ideally be 100% whole grain durum wheat pasta, because it’s high in fibre (and protein, incidentally) and it’s low-GI. Even then you have to watch your portion sizes.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011
http://oldwayspt.org/resources/heritage-pyramids/mediterranean-diet-pyramid/traditional-med-diet

Here is the Mediterranean Diet food pyramid: http://oldwayspt.org/sites/default/files/images/Med_pyramid_flyer.jpg

As for serving sizes (and amount of servings, etc.):
http://www.livestrong.com/article/337105-1800-calorie-mediterranean-diet/
http://www.drgourmet.com/md/mediterraneanamericandietguide.pdf

Besides all that, I just want to make it clear that I never said people should consume refined carbs (even in the form of pasta or bread) or that refined carbs are in any way part of the Mediterranean diet.


>Gluten bad for everyone

https://www.drgourmet.com/askdrgourmet/gluten/craze.shtml

I have read the article and I don’t see where it says gluten is bad for everyone. I says that there are people who are not celiac disease sufferers, but who believe they are sensitive to gluten. These are people who are gluten-intolerant. So, they will benefit from not consuming gluten. But not everyone is gluten-intolerant. It doesn’t say people who are not celiac disease sufferers and who are not sensitive to gluten should not consume gluten.

Some gluten-tolerant people have said that they feel better going gluten free, but researchers say this can be because people are generally eating better (especially cutting out processed foods). So, they cannot definitely say that it is because of cutting out gluten.

So maybe people should try going gluten free for a few weeks to see if they feel better. If they do feel better then great, but if they don’t, it seems, at least according to everything I have read, that they can go back to consuming gluten…in moderation, that is (like everything else).

Here are more articles I found (Only some of them, as I have read at least twenty more on the issue who all say the same thing. It’s getting rather boring actually):
http://www.everydayhealth.com/digestive-health/who-really-should-be-on-a-gluten-free-diet.aspx
http://drcate.com/is-wheat-gluten-bad-for-everyone/
http://www.livingwithout.com/issues/4_15/qa_augsep11-2554-1.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/manuel-villacorta/gluten-sensitivity-_b_1257359.html
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/15/are-there-degrees-of-gluten-sensitivity/
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-02-16/features/bs-ae-gluten-free-craze-20120209_1_gluten-free-diet-gluten-free-products-celiac-disease


Now these are two of dozens of articles I found on the first two pages of a google search for key phrases like "gluten intolerance", "is gluten bad for people", "is Gluten bad for non celiacs"... etc etc. It took me four minutes. Seriously, plug those phrases into google and tell me again that you exhausted yourself in your futile attempt to find any articles that possibly supported my point of view.

Ah geez, and here I was Googling “YouTube kittens” and “I love Justin Bieber”. Go figure.


And yes I'm aware that these aren't peer reviewed articles that would hold up in a weighty and serious debate. I'm really just humoring you people because you refuse to do your own research; which I have done and so, already made up my mind. If you want to remain ignorant and unhealthy, you are free to do so of course.

Whether or not you believe me, or agree with me, I have looked into it and I choose to stick to my gluten-inclusive diet, or as you would say, “remain ignorant and unhealthy”. So you don’t have to waste anymore of your precious time trying to humour or educate me.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Here is the Mediterranean Diet food pyramid: http://oldwayspt.org/sites/default/f...amid_flyer.jpg

Yes and when you look at it like that it is not too dissimilar to this so called Paleolithic diet - 'mostly eat natural food' and exercise could be the common denominator. Don't eat junk (or rarely do) is common sense after all and needs no particular name.

During this last week (six days) and much of the previous, I have been following, say an improved diet. I don't eat 'junk' at all much anyway, apart from one too many pizzas and too much beer, and one sugar in my tea, but this last week especially I have very strict with it and I have certainly noticed the results. (My one slip was a medium sized pizza and half a beer on Tuesday, but that is not the end of the world.) I have lost about 3 to 4lbs and I feel a lot more energetic - I noticed this last night when biking up a hill, a real difference in speed. I have replaced:

* White bread with wholemeal (and eaten less of it)
* White pasta with wholemeal (again eaten less of it)
(And only really eating pasta before I play tennis)
* Ate More fruit and veg (replacing the gap left by pasta and bread)
* replaced beer with water
* reduced tea and coffee to one a day and cut out sugar completely
* swapped the odd biscuit with bananas and a few nuts/yoghurt
* Ate more fish
* Ate less cheese
* maintained level of exercise (tennis and biking) and had a little more sleep

So a typical day has been (today for example):

Breakfast
One banana and water (water quite a lot throughout the day)

Dinner
Wholemeal bread - two slices, tomatoes, and fruit (2 oranges/kiwi), one coffee no sugar

3.00pm snack
Fat free Greek yoghurt, one banana and a few nuts

Tea
Two potions of fish, broccoli, other veg, maybe one slice of wholemeal, milk or water

Supper/snack
Tomatoes, water instead of beer!
(I might have one glass tonight as it is Friday)


I know people advocate things in moderation, and that is quite correct, but personally I have found it much easier just to totally eradicate all the junk completely. No biscuits, no sugar, no choc, cake, white bread - just cut it all out - what's the point of eating a biscuit if it is full of crap anyway? Eat a banana. I've found that the best thing to do anyway.

From here though there is the weekend and I don't know if to let up in terms of beer. It certainly doesn't help that I'm going to a wedding tomorrow whereby not drinking large quantities of beer will be heavily frowned upon...

There's a good article on the Paleo diet here:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/511037-back-to-basics-the-primal-diet/

[qimissung]

"youtube kittens" lol, TurquoiseSunset. I'm trying the Sonoma Diet myself, which is a Mediterranean diet. I was doing fine for awhile there, but I seem to have slipped a bit. I'll get back on it next week. It does seem that certain foods and herbs are spectacularly good for you, olive oil among them, but also coconut oil, turmeric (a spice), spinach, broccoli, wild caught salmon, green tea. So, in addition to focusing on the Mediterranean diet, I also try to include foods that are anti-inflammatory:


http://www.disaboom.com/nutrition/top-50-anti-inflammatory-foods


http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/anti-inflammatory-diet-road-to-good-health

[billl]

I know people advocate things in moderation, and that is quite correct, but personally I have found it much easier just to totally eradicate all the junk completely. No biscuits, no sugar, no choc, cake, white bread - just cut it all out - what's the point of eating a biscuit if it is full of crap anyway? Eat a banana. I've found that the best thing to do anyway.


This is how I feel. I'm not completely on a mission right now, but for some time I've cut out the stuff that is "crap", no reason to be moderate about that. I'll have a few pieces of chocolate with my coffee now and then (2 or 3 times a week, just 3-5 small pieces), and dark chocolate seem to be the type that has the anti-oxidant stuff going on (so for the time being at least, milk chocolate may as well be "crap", if the dark is available). Other than that, I don't want any kind of desert, it's just absurd to me, I couldn't possibly enjoy any of it unless there were some social purpose (yeah, I'd have a slice of wedding cake, or some ice cream with an elderly woman who's trying to be a good host and enjoy some herself).

Eight or nine almonds and a square-inch of cheese will do the trick if I don't want any hassle. Broccoli is generally a no-fuss option, as well. As mentioned elsewhere, I can slice up a bell pepper in a few minutes and have something just as crunchy and interesting as a bag of potato chips. I could go on--and it would begin to look a little less than virtuous, as far as carbs go probably (bagels, sandwiches., a big plate of pasta once every week or two..), and it could be argued that I'm going overboard with the cheese, but the point is: never soda or any of these sugared drinks (the pleasure is really not so great, c'mon, tea and coffee put that stuff to shame), and never with the cookies and cake and pie and candy-bars and all of that. Moderation with that stuff is a good step, but just eliminating it is the way to go in the end, it's just empty and transient pleasure, and knowing as much has taken all of the pleasure out of it for me. There's healthier forms of empty and transient pleasure out there. (No, no, no, I didn't mean that--I'm talking about chocolate and coffee! Come on!)

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes, I'm thinking of 'upping the ante with the Paleo' and going as close to 100% as I can for a couple of weeks. As I have already said my energy levels have shot up and some weight come off (I'm not fat but a little off will do), just by making the changes I mentioned before. It would be interesting to see the outcome after a couple of weeks.

[TurquoiseSunset]

Yes and when you look at it like that it is not too dissimilar to this so called Paleolithic diet - 'mostly eat natural food' and exercise could be the common denominator. Don't eat junk (or rarely do) is common sense after all and needs no particular name.

Yes, it's also similar to the Asian Diet. I found a hybrid too: Mediterrasian (http://mediterrasian.com/) :p

But yes, you're right. They all work on the principle of eating natural food and being active. What I like about all of them is that they are fairly easy to stick to as well.

Okay people. I have decided today that I am going to cut out sugar completely for 7 days. I'm pretty sure I'm addicted to it and I really want to see how I feel after a week. Then I might extend the sugar free period and eventually allow back things like some honey in my tea every now and then, and that sort of thing. But starting now it's no sugar for seven days. [I'll go very light on the sweetners as well]

:svengo:

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes, it's also similar to the Asian Diet. I found a hybrid too: Mediterrasian (http://mediterrasian.com/) :p

But yes, you're right. They all work on the principle of eating natural food and being active. What I like about all of them is that they are fairly easy to stick to as well.

Okay people. I have decided today that I am going to cut out sugar completely for 7 days. I'm pretty sure I'm addicted to it and I really want to see how I feel after a week. Then I might extend the sugar free period and eventually allow back things like some honey in my tea every now and then, and that sort of thing. But starting now it's no sugar for seven days. [I'll go very light on the sweetners as well]

:svengo:

Yes I've never heard of 'Meditterasian' before, but there's a first time for everything.

Good stuff on losing the sugar - it can only be a good move. Why not try going 'full Paleo' for a day'?;) I could do with someone to compare notes with.

I'm three days on sticking to the Paleo 100% and the week before about 80%. I'm determined to continue 100% Paleo for at least two weeks - that is eating only lean meats (chicken, pork, fish; a little beef) and lots of fresh fruit and veg. No diary, no grains/cereals, breads or beans, no sugar/salt, processed food, alcohol, tea or coffee (even if these are moderately allowed on the Paleo) chocolates, cakes, biscuits, etc, just lean meats, fruit and vegetables. Call it an experiment if nothing else however I have noticed a big difference already.

Immediately I noticed my energy levels had shot up, as I said last week, this has continued and I feel quite energised throughout the day. This is especially noticeable in the morning where normally I would be dead until about 12. I don't feel that late evening 'slumping' feeling either, instead I feel both mentally and physically more alert.

I have also lost about 5lb and am looking a little more lean, especially around the face and belly! This is good. Maybe I could get away with a few more pounds off, though I wouldn't need to lose much more, say another 3 or 4 pounds would be perfect.

I have also noticed that I don't feel bloated at all as I used to after tea sometimes. I feel light and refreshed after every meal.

So it is so far, so good. I'm not advocating the diet one way or the other and it could be that I just feel good due to a certain part of the diet - lack of alcohol for example, but I can only go by my experience of the diet which so far is very positive.

I have just finished reading The Paleo Diet by Loren Codain, which is pretty good, a little repetitive, but it gives you a good overview.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Paleo-Diet-Healthy-Designed/dp/0470913029/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347388764&sr=8-1

I've also read a load of articles on the diet online. I have also just received The Paleo Diet for Athletes:) that I'm going to be reading next.

[billl]

You know, the recent thread about exercising and now this one together remind me of the exercise routine of a famous economist I read about a couple years ago. In the interview, he was described as being pretty fit, and he explained that he did sprints once a week (this is where I got the idea) and his rationale was basically the same as the Paleolithic Diet. I don't know if an actual expert on Paleolithic times would agree, but his nutshell explanation was that for many years, the body became efficient at responding to the need to sprint like mad every now and then, depending on the particular environment. I've also read about how humans might have often obtained meat by jogging longer than other animals could (tiring them out), but apart from that particular hunting strategy, it does sort of make sense that a dash for cover might be the sort of thing we could maybe get good at, even with only sporadic practice. In my experience, it works really well at getting one quickly beyond the sort of running 'ability' that develops over the course of a few years without any sprinting at all besides a biannual dash for the subway. After just a few weeks, I didn't become "a sprinter", but I was no longer a clumsy, lumbering wreck--and it stuck.

Anyhow, I just looked at the Wikipedia page for the "Paleolithic Lifestyle", and the recommendations regarding exercise are different, but in the same spirit, and probably anyone actually working on the diet is aware of all this... Still, it seems like a tangent worth mentioning, and it just today clicked in my head.

[Clopin]

You won't notice any changes in your body after a week of barely adhering to a diet Neely.

Edit: And if you do it's purely a placebo effect.

[TurquoiseSunset]

Going without sugar is so difficult! Almost everything contains sugar, even the 'healthier' things, like low-fat yoghurt and my instant oats and whole wheat breakfast cereal. And while the amount of sugar in my breakfast cereal is not that much I really want to try to do this right for a week. I'll just have to plan a little better that's all.

Generally, going sugar free won't affect my lunch and dinner, but definitely breakfast and snacking. Then of course there's the sugar in coffee, tea, juice, smoothies, flavoured water (not big on unflavoured during the colder months). As for soda, I only drink the occasional ginger beer and then tonic water with gin. Oh, and wine will have to go. Luckily I don't drink a lot of alcohol, so that will be easy to cut out.

I got a funny reaction from a friend when I told her about going sugar free for a week. She looked at me like I was insane and sharply asked me why. I said it's because I just want to see what I will feel like after a week without sugar, considering how much of it I'm actually consuming. She was quite dismissive about it. I wonder if she feels like maybe it will be expected of her to do it as well? I don't know, but it was quite strange. I expected people to be a little more positive about it. Then she said that she's going to make dessert on Saturday, when a bunch of us are going to be there, and the implication was that I would have to eat it...weird.


Good stuff on losing the sugar - it can only be a good move. Why not try going 'full Paleo' for a day'?;) I could do with someone to compare notes with.

It would be interesting to see what happens. I might do it after I'm done with my sugar free experiment. At the moment the idea of going without dairy and grains/cereals as well seems tough. :lol:


You know, the recent thread about exercising and now this one together remind me of the exercise routine of a famous economist I read about a couple years ago. In the interview, he was described as being pretty fit, and he explained that he did sprints once a week (this is where I got the idea) and his rationale was basically the same as the Paleolithic Diet. I don't know if an actual expert on Paleolithic times would agree, but his nutshell explanation was that for many years, the body became efficient at responding to the need to sprint like mad every now and then, depending on the particular environment. I've also read about how humans might have often obtained meat by jogging longer than other animals could (tiring them out), but apart from that particular hunting strategy, it does sort of make sense that a dash for cover might be the sort of thing we could maybe get good at, even with only sporadic practice. In my experience, it works really well at getting one quickly beyond the sort of running 'ability' that develops over the course of a few years without any sprinting at all besides a biannual dash for the subway. After just a few weeks, I didn't become "a sprinter", but I was no longer a clumsy, lumbering wreck--and it stuck.

Anyhow, I just looked at the Wikipedia page for the "Paleolithic Lifestyle", and the recommendations regarding exercise are different, but in the same spirit, and probably anyone actually working on the diet is aware of all this... Still, it seems like a tangent worth mentioning, and it just today clicked in my head.

I thought about this last night actually, but more with regards to gender differences. I was thinking about men hunting and women gathering and the different excercises involved. Then again, I'm sure women also hunted, but smaller animals like hares, for example, so they would also have to sprint and so on.

[billl]

I thought about this last night actually, but more with regards to gender differences. I was thinking about men hunting and women gathering and the different excercises involved. Then again, I'm sure women also hunted, but smaller animals like hares, for example, so they would also have to sprint and so on.

Heh, yeah, without really knowing anything about it, I think I could really start rambling on anyhow about how there's a variety of body-types, genetic differences, and then the probably different effects of different diets combined with different exercise--it'd be impossible really to say that just one thing would be best for everyone. I hadn't thought about how better diet/exercise strategies might tend to vary by sex/gender...

Anyhow, I noticed you were being pretty hardcore about cutting out sugar--I mean, I think fruit juice (and fruit) would be fair game in most Paleolithic-type diets... You need some amount of sugar every day, of course, but the sugared sodas and teas (and candy and so on) really go way beyond what's needed. But as long as you have a plan that doesn't go to the opposite extreme, I guess it should be OK. (But having the cereal seems like it would be the "right" way of doing it, unless it's one of those crazy kid's cereals where it's tons of sugar in there... Just don't add any more sugar, probably, if it's a healthy brand.) I get most of my sugar from grapes and other fruit, probably--but then bread and pasta also can convert to sugar in the body...

[TurquoiseSunset]

Anyhow, I noticed you were being pretty hardcore about cutting out sugar--I mean, I think fruit juice (and fruit) would be fair game in most Paleolithic-type diets... You need some amount of sugar every day, of course, but the sugared sodas and teas (and candy and so on) really go way beyond what's needed. But as long as you have a plan that doesn't go to the opposite extreme, I guess it should be OK. (But having the cereal seems like it would be the "right" way of doing it, unless it's one of those crazy kid's cereals where it's tons of sugar in there... Just don't add any more sugar, probably, if it's a healthy brand.) I get most of my sugar from grapes and other fruit, probably--but then bread and pasta also can convert to sugar in the body...

I am still eating bread, pasta, potatoes and fruit. I'm also drinking milk and that contains lactose. Fruit juice is difficult, because even when it says 100% juice they still use concentrate to sweeten the juice, so you're getting more sugar. A 200ml juice box I keep in my drawer at work says it's 100% juice (reconstituted from concentrate) and it contains 24 grams of sugar, which is about 5 teaspoons of sugar. Holy moly, hey? So maybe freshly squeezed juice is the way to go? I'll check tonight what the sugar content of my cereal is. I just checked some flavoured water I have here as well, and 500ml contains 25 grams of sugar.

I'm also still drinking tea and coffee, but without sugar and one sweetner in my tea (which is herbal - Rooibos - and tastes a little sweeter than black tea anyway). I like my tea sweet.

Anyway, it's just for a week or so. I just want to see if I can feel a difference. It's a good start to cutting down in the long run, I think. Honestly, there is no way I am going without the occassional dessert and the odd block of chocolate for the rest of my life, but if I'm going to include it I want to be 'smart' about it.

[LitNetIsGreat]

You won't notice any changes in your body after a week of barely adhering to a diet Neely.

Edit: And if you do it's purely a placebo effect.

Well I have as previously mentioned. Also the scales now say 5/6lb lighter and they are not broken.

Bill, there's a bit on physical fitness from Corden's book here's an extract you might be interested in. Their lives seem to revolve around intense periods of activity balanced with days of rest, with overall fitness massively improved over the standard Western counterpart:


Our stone age ancestors worked hard or they didn't eat. Sustained labor wasn't necessary every day; periods of intense exertion generally alternated with days of rest and relaxation. But the work was always there, an inevitable fact of life. There were no retirement plans, no vacations, and definitely no labor-saving devices. Everybody, except for the very young or very old, helped out. And their daily efforts were astonishing. The amount of physical activity performed by an average hunter-gatherer would have been about four times greater than that of a sedentary office worker and about three times greater than anybody needs to get the health benefits of exercise. An office worker who jogged 3 miles day for a whole week would used less than half the energy of an average hunter-gatherer, such as the Kung people of Africa. Kung men on average walk 9.3 miles per day; the women average 5.7 miles per day. As you may expect, all this walking and regular physical activity pays off with high levels of physical fitness for everyone. In fact, my research team has shown that the average aerobic capacity of the world's hunter-gathers and less Westernized peoples is similar to that of today's top athletes.

Still on task with the diet. I can't believe that my love of bread and pizza, not to mention beer:drool5: has been so easy to drop. I have got a strange urge for a strawberry tart though - it's a good job I haven't got any in the house.

[Clopin]

As a human being, weight fluctuation is completely normal and occurs even without a change in diet. A ten day switch to "sort of" paleo with a pizza/beer allowance will net you zero results, that's just how the human body works.

[billl]

Bill, there's a bit on physical fitness from Corden's book here's an extract you might be interested in.

Thanks a lot--I just remembered a bit from that old interview, and I've glanced at a few things on the net without following the trail to an actual description even as long as this extract, so this was convenient to just have something general to read handed to me.



I'm also still drinking tea and coffee, but without sugar and one sweetner in my tea (which is herbal - Rooibos - and tastes a little sweeter than black tea anyway). I like my tea sweet.

I don't add anything to sweeten tea, but I don't mind when one is a little sweet naturally. So you've got me thinking (again) about picking up some Rooibos--I remember someone mentioning it on LitNet probably two years ago or something (it might've been you, actually), and it's been in the back of my mind. Anyhow, could you maybe list two or three (or more) respectable brands? I don't know exactly what the "hip" grocery store will have to choose from, but I remember it was more than one brand.

[TurquoiseSunset]

I don't add anything to sweeten tea, but I don't mind when one is a little sweet naturally. So you've got me thinking (again) about picking up some Rooibos--I remember someone mentioning it on LitNet probably two years ago or something (it might've been you, actually), and it's been in the back of my mind. Anyhow, could you maybe list two or three (or more) respectable brands? I don't know exactly what the "hip" grocery store will have to choose from, but I remember it was more than one brand.

Ha, it probably was me, I remember saying something about Rooibos before...didn't we have a tea thread?

The most popular brand in South Africa is Freshpak, mainly because it's good and cheap :D Eleven o'Clock is also good, but not as strong. These are the ones that you should be able to get overseas (well, there's Lipton too, but I'm not a fan). The rest I haven't tasted or I'm not sure if it's available outside of Southern Africa. Maybe Google will be of more help, he he.

Stear clear of unbleached bags, because they give the tea a cardboard flavour (you don't have to use loose leaves). And don't drink it too hot because it makes the tea taste 'thinner'.

It makes great iced tea too. It's naturally caffeine free and full of antioxidants. So it's safe for pregnant women and it's great for babies (for calming their tummies and it's good for their skin). And it's nice before bed, because it doesn't keep you awake.

I hope you like it ;)

[LitNetIsGreat]

As a human being, weight fluctuation is completely normal and occurs even without a change in diet. A ten day switch to "sort of" paleo with a pizza/beer allowance will net you zero results, that's just how the human body works.

That's true generally speaking, daily fluctuations in weight are also a factor with the body weighing less in the morning (two pound in my case) due to water loss and carb loss during the night. However, I now weigh around 11st 5/6 pound, compared to 11 st 11/12, which is the lightest I have weighed in at least 10 years. Is this a complete coincidence, considering I have completely cut out pizza, pasta, bread, beer, chocolate, biscuits, cake, buns, chips, potatoes, milk, extra sugar, cheese, tea, coffee and other such things from my diet and replaced them with fruit, veg and lean meat and upped exercise a little? I think not. Corden points out in his book that most people who switch to this diet notice dramatic results in weight loss and fitness immediately (though he does point out that initially much of the weight loss is water loss) and this has certainly been the case with me.

[Clopin]

That's true generally speaking, daily fluctuations in weight are also a factor with the body weighing less in the morning (two pound in my case) due to water loss and carb loss during the night. However, I now weigh around 11st 5/6 pound, compared to 11 st 11/12, which is the lightest I have weighed in at least 10 years. Is this a complete coincidence, considering I have completely cut out pizza, pasta, bread, beer, chocolate, biscuits, cake, buns, chips, potatoes, milk, extra sugar, cheese, tea, coffee and other such things from my diet and replaced them with fruit, veg and lean meat and upped exercise a little? I think not. Corden points out in his book that most people who switch to this diet notice dramatic results in weight loss and fitness immediately (though he does point out that initially much of the weight loss is water loss) and this has certainly been the case with me.

You lost water weight/bloat that you had from previously being unhealthy. It is impossible to lose 5-6 pounds of fat in one week.

[Shea]

Okay, so I haven't been around for a bit because of gluten, but I'm still feeling a little bit better from yesterday, which was a good day, so I thought I'd check this thread out again.

Clopin, I'm someone who is seriously sensitive to gluten. A crumb is enough to make me sick for a month. Which, thanks to my 4 year old, is what I'm suffering through right now. But I find that you've been a somewhat harsh with Turquiose. There is a lot of bad info about gluten out there even among the medical community. There is no drug to treat celiac or gluten intolerance, so many doctors don't really know much about it; even GI specialists. Especially here in the States. I've actually heard of doctors telling people with celiac, that they'll "grow out of it" one day, and then they can go back to eating gluten.:yikes:

After my personal research, I happen to agree that gluten is bad for anyone. But I also believe that it's really just more so that way today because of the way we've genetically modified our crops. But when even many doctors get it wrong, I don't think it's fair for a lay person to be singled out for "ignorance." Unless someone has a medical reason to avoid gluten, I believe it's only bad in a similar way that eating refined sugar is bad.

I also wanted to clarify to you guys that just because a person eats gluten-free doesn't neccessarily make them ultra-heathy. I can easily down an entire bag of potato chips if I want and wash it down with a 2 liter of soda (though I never ate that way even before going gluten-free ;) ) I am eating a bit healthier, but I still have a tendency to go for some of the processed foods because I'm a stay-at-home mom with an extremely picky 4-year-old. I really don't have time to make sure my breakfast and lunches are ultra-healthy which is why I haven't yet tried the paleo-diet. I have enough on my plate (pun intended) with just making sure that I haven't accidentally cross-contaminated my meal. :)

[LitNetIsGreat]

You lost water weight/bloat that you had from previously being unhealthy. It is impossible to lose 5-6 pounds of fat in one week.

Hey who said anything about being unhealthy? I'm not unhealthy by a long shot. Also I didn't say 5-6 pounds of fat. I know some of that is water loss. Also I wish I hadn't said that my scales are not broken as they now are in some weird coincidence.

I've had a touch of cold yesterday and this morning. I must say I feel a little unlucky to have got cold considering all the masses of vitamin C I have been taking in, never mind.

I have been reading Loren Codain's other book (co written) The Paleo Diet for Athletes and I have to say it does somewhat contradict many of the things written in his other one.:sosp: For example from the start it admits that for top athletic performance the paleo diet alone is not sufficient, whereas even if you compare that with the quote above you will see the inconsistencies. It even suggests taking in extra salt during/before performance and taking on board extra carbs in the form of pasta, drinking sports drinks, protein shakes, potatoes - grains (grains in the other book are :nono:) and so on. To be fair though I suppose, the first book doesn't necessarily advocate 100% paleo, but does suggest having 'open' meals, 'treats' from time to time, but the whole - 'put some extra salt on your chips' thing is annoying after reading the first book's tut tuttiness. As I said initially - common sense is probably still the best policy.

[Clopin]

There's a difference between optimal health and optimal athletic performance.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I thought I would share this common counter argument given by Cordain and Friel to the Paleo diet.


Cordain and Friel write in The Paleo Diet for Athletes

Common Counterarguments

Some of the most widespread, intuitive counterarguments against the Paleo Diet are that ‘they’ (hunter gatherers) died at an early age and thus ‘didn’t live long enough to develop heart disease, cancer and other chronic illnesses.’ Consequently, ‘they really were not healthier or fitter than modern people.’

If you have bought into the first statement, then you are absolutely correct. There is no doubt that the average life span of hunter-gatherers and Stone Age people was quite short, compared with our own. Case in point: The average age of Neanderthals has been estimated at 12-15 years; pre-European-contact American Indians, 20 to 25 years. Today, US women live to age 79; men, to 72. It should be pointed out, though, that ‘average life span’ is a misleading term. In reality, average life span is nothing more than the average age at death for an entire population, it tells us zilch about the age and health characteristics of individual, living people. For example, if two parents lived to the ages of 79 and 72, were healthy for most of their adult lives, and had two children who died at birth, the average life span of this group of four people would be 37. 7 years. On the surface, based upon the low average it would appear that all people in this group were not very healthy.

In order to more accurately portray a population’s age and health characteristics, scientists have devised what are called life tables – charts that show the entire living population by age group, not just the people who have died. IN a study of more that 450 Kung hunter –gathers in Botswana, life tables revealed that 10 percent of the population were age 60 and older. But more important, the aged populations in hunter-gatherers died not from chronic, degenerative disease but from the accidents and trauma of a hazardous life spent in a perilous environment.

Think about camping out for your entire life, and you can get an appreciation for how harsh and dangerous their lifestyle was. While most of us really need not worry about death until middle or old age, hunter-gatherers commonly suffered early death from causes that claim comparatively few of us. They had no modern medicine, no advanced surgical procedures, no antibiotics, and no understanding of the germs that cause infection and disease. Civil war, strife, and regional conflict were a fact of life that continually raged throughout most of their lives, and infanticide was commonly practiced. Because they lived outdoors their entire lives and were constantly challenged by the elements and the physical environment, the risk of injury from accidents was quite high over the course of their lifetimes. Hunting big game, then as now, would have been a risky business, increasing the likelihood of accident or injury. The net result of living an entire life in a perilous environment produced a high death rate of trauma and accident in these people. It is rather remarkable that 10 to 20 percent of the population lived to 60 and beyond.

However, again, the take-home message is that the living, regardless of their age, were universally lean, fit and free of the chronic degenerative disease that are epidemic in our world…

All of this seems fairly logical to me.

Still going strong with the two week 100% trial. I've no idea of my weight as the scales are still broken but I'm feeling fine. I've never biked with so much ease that's for sure, whether that is anything to do with the diet or not, I don't know, but the 50 mile bike trip I did at the weekend was well within me, I felt like I could have biked a 100. I've never climbed hills so quickly.

[Clopin]

It's an extremely good diet neely. Here's another interesting test. Go full paleo for a month and then eat some bread, hummus and canned beans. Your body will hate you for it.

[Calidore]

All of this seems fairly logical to me.


Except it sounds like he's trying to have his meat and eat it by implying that the hazardous prehistoric lifestyle was primarily responsible for the short lifespan while the paleo diet kept them lean and fit, when the truth seems more likely to be that the constant activity required to survive was also primarily responsible for their fitness.

[Clopin]

Except it sounds like he's trying to have his meat and eat it by implying that the hazardous prehistoric lifestyle was primarily responsible for the short lifespan while the paleo diet kept them lean and fit, when the truth seems more likely to be that the constant activity required to survive was also primarily responsible for their fitness.

Constant aggravation and hard labour are actually not good for people. Take a look at a sixty year old man who's been working hard in the country his entire life and compare him with someone who gets enough exercise, good food and good rest while working a relaxing job.

[Calidore]

Constant aggravation and hard labour are actually not good for people. Take a look at a sixty year old man who's been working hard in the country his entire life and compare him with someone who gets enough exercise, good food and good rest while working a relaxing job.

True enough. My point is simply that their shorter lifespan was due to numerous factors (mostly obvious ones), and trying to give credit for the good entirely to a wannabe-fad diet smacks more of salesmanship than anything else.

[LitNetIsGreat]

It's an extremely good diet neely. Here's another interesting test. Go full paleo for a month and then eat some bread, hummus and canned beans. Your body will hate you for it.


Yes that would be interesting. I don't intend to stop after two weeks, I'm going to stick with it but knock it down to 90-95% and not be quite so militant. Actually the first book even said that one or two 'open' meals a week can easily be included in the diet. Are you a follower of the Paleo diet then, how much so?


True enough. My point is simply that their shorter lifespan was due to numerous factors (mostly obvious ones), and trying to give credit for the good entirely to a wannabe-fad diet smacks more of salesmanship than anything else.

To be fair, he does mention exercise frequently in both books. In fact exercise takes up a whole chapter of the first book and is pretty much central to the Paleo for Athletes book, naturally. Also I don't think 'fad diet' is accurate as the central argument really is that this is THE natural diet of human beings as it is what we have evolved with. Anything else pretty much becomes unwanted extras. I can tell you one thing shopping in the supermarket is made a whole lot easier - meat and fish, fruit and veg, perhaps smoothies and then home.

[Clopin]

True enough. My point is simply that their shorter lifespan was due to numerous factors (mostly obvious ones), and trying to give credit for the good entirely to a wannabe-fad diet smacks more of salesmanship than anything else.

The diet is currently in vogue, but if you can look at a diet that consists entirely of...

fish and seafood
poultry
red meat
vegetables
eggs
nuts and seeds
fruit

and somehow peg this as not incredibly healthy then you just don't understand nutrition.

[Calidore]

Pretty much every diet has some combination of the above; it's all in the balance. (Though as an aside, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't seeds = grains and thus verboten?) Paleo sounds remarkably close to the last fad diet, Atkins, which was also all about eliminating entire categories, and which was also The Perfect Diet according to the people selling it. Until later studies showed it wasn't.

Reading up just now, I found that US News & World Report had a team of experts do large diet evaluations last year (20 diets) and this year (24 diets). The current one is here:

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets

Both years, the paleo diet placed dead last.

[Clopin]

Pretty much every diet has some combination of the above; it's all in the balance. (Though as an aside, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't seeds = grains and thus verboten?) Paleo sounds remarkably close to the last fad diet, Atkins, which was also all about eliminating entire categories, and which was also The Perfect Diet according to the people selling it. Until later studies showed it wasn't.

Reading up just now, I found that US News & World Report had a team of experts do large diet evaluations last year (20 diets) and this year (24 diets). The current one is here:

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets

Both years, the paleo diet placed dead last.

Seeds are not always grains. They should be limited in consumption.

Team of experts evaluating idiotic diets made popular by television shows? I think I'll pass on your "source". And the fact that you're still disputing the fact that fruit/veg with nuts and meat is a good diet shows that you're an idiot.

[Clopin]

Oh my God, I've just been reading this link that you've shown me. They base everything off of the totally obsolete food pyramid and don't seem to know anything about nutrition (so much for experts). Focus less on trying to "prove" others wrong, and getting hung up on the name and reasoning behind the diet and embrace common sense. These foods are healthy, they will make you healthy, period.

[Clopin]

And sorry about the triple post but weight loss (in general) tends to be a simple process of calories in vs calories out, eat less than you expend and you lose weight, even if you're on an all mcdonalds diet; so arbitrary criterion like "weight loss /5" is just totally absurd.

[Calidore]

Team of experts evaluating idiotic diets made popular by television shows? I think I'll pass on your "source".

The diets evaluated come from everywhere: TV, the big national diet brands (Wieght Watchers, Jenny Craig), agencies like the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the Mayo Clinic, the National Institute of Health, & etc.


And the fact that you're still disputing the fact that fruit/veg with nuts and meat is a good diet shows that you're an idiot.

I've never once disputed that, because that would be silly, as is tossing out personal insults based on a comprehension fail.


Oh my God, I've just been reading this link that you've shown me. They base everything off of the totally obsolete food pyramid and don't seem to know anything about nutrition (so much for experts).

All have various combinations of Ph.D., M.D., R.D., and other titles I'm not familiar with, and have focused on areas of nutrition and health. What exactly are your qualifications that Clopin > them?


Focus less on trying to "prove" others wrong, and getting hung up on the name and reasoning behind the diet

Ironic, considering

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1166903&postcount=20

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1167200&postcount=23

You're the only one who's ever made being personally right and wrong important here, rather than the content of the discussion.


and embrace common sense. These foods are healthy, they will make you healthy, period.

In proper balance and moderation, absolutely. That's what every single diet is about, finding the right balance and level.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Paleo sounds remarkably close to the last fad diet, Atkins, which was also all about eliminating entire categories, and which was also The Perfect Diet according to the people selling it. Until later studies showed it wasn't.

You're still calling it a 'fad diet' which I don't think is accurate. The 'diet' (I would really call it a lifestyle) is based on 2.5 million years of evolution, i.e. what our bodies are programmed to eat, not some genuine fad like Atkins (which limited intake of fruit and veg:eek6:). The idea is that you only eat natural foods free from food that our bodies are not fully adapted to. It is argued that 'our genes were never developed with grains, beans and potatoes and were not in tune with them, and still are not' as is explained here:
http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html

It is really all about eating healthy, natural food, and eliminating (or only occasionally eating) everything that is not - the junk.

[Calidore]

You're still calling it a 'fad diet' which I don't think is accurate. The 'diet' (I would really call it a lifestyle) is based on 2.5 million years of evolution, i.e. what our bodies are programmed to eat, not some genuine fad like Atkins (which limited intake of fruit and veg:eek6:). The idea is that you only eat natural foods free from food that our bodies are not fully adapted to. It is argued that 'our genes were never developed with grains, beans and potatoes and were not in tune with them, and still are not' as is explained here:
http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html

It is really all about eating healthy, natural food, and eliminating (or only occasionally eating) everything that is not - the junk.

It may not yet be mainstream enough to be a fad, but if not, it sure looks to be going that way. Atkins did limit fruits and vegetables, but claimed good reasons, and people ignored common sense and bought it. Then a few years later, the fad was over. Similarly, with paleo you have to buy into the idea that nutritious foods we weren't eating millions of years ago, like milk, whole grains, and especially legumes, are somehow undesirable just because of that. But our prehistoric ancestors weren't following a diet; they were eating whatever they could get their hands on, because humans are lucky enough to be omnivorous. They didn't have grains, beans, etc. because they didn't have agriculture, not because they decided those things weren't right for their systems. They simply didn't know about them, and may not have cared if they did, because survival was day-to-day for them.

That's why I find the whole paleo diet thing illogical. It ignores that most of what we've added to our diet since then is a result of progress. Heck, everything the cavemen ate was new at one time. They learned the hard way what was poisonous and continued eating everything else available to them. That's what we're still doing. Our problem is that in the interest of mass production we're refining all the nutrients out of everything, and in the interest of laziness we're eating this refined but easy stuff. That same laziness leads people to pick up easily adopted diets that can be made to sound logical at first hearing ("No carbs!" / "Nothing post-civilization!") rather than doing some research and assembling a decent and simple plan themselves.

[Clopin]

You're too hung up on the premise of the diet, which is little more than a marketing ploy. The actual content of the diet is healthy, period. There's a reason why most of the worlds population are somewhat lactose intolerant or gluten intolerant and why most legumes give people indigestion and stomach problems.

Look into actually understanding nutrition.

[Clopin]

And so what if other diets advocate the same things? Calling your diet paleo really mean anything. Yes, all diets that promote nutrition will promote eating healthy things. How crazy!

[LitNetIsGreat]

It may not yet be mainstream enough to be a fad, but if not, it sure looks to be going that way. Atkins did limit fruits and vegetables, but claimed good reasons, and people ignored common sense and bought it. Then a few years later, the fad was over. Similarly, with paleo you have to buy into the idea that nutritious foods we weren't eating millions of years ago, like milk, whole grains, and especially legumes, are somehow undesirable just because of that. But our prehistoric ancestors weren't following a diet; they were eating whatever they could get their hands on, because humans are lucky enough to be omnivorous. They didn't have grains, beans, etc. because they didn't have agriculture, not because they decided those things weren't right for their systems. They simply didn't know about them, and may not have cared if they did, because survival was day-to-day for them.

That's why I find the whole paleo diet thing illogical. It ignores that most of what we've added to our diet since then is a result of progress. Heck, everything the cavemen ate was new at one time. They learned the hard way what was poisonous and continued eating everything else available to them. That's what we're still doing. Our problem is that in the interest of mass production we're refining all the nutrients out of everything, and in the interest of laziness we're eating this refined but easy stuff. That same laziness leads people to pick up easily adopted diets that can be made to sound logical at first hearing ("No carbs!" / "Nothing post-civilization!") rather than doing some research and assembling a decent and simple plan themselves.

It is not a case of 'no carbs' it is a case of getting carbs from fruits and vegetables. I can't see how that can be a bad thing. As well as getting the carbs you need from fruits and veg, over grains, you also get a host of vitamins and minerals that you certainly wouldn't have got on grains alone.

I'm not an expert but in terms of evolutionary progress it takes a lot longer for our bodies to adjust to new foods. Some passages on the subject:


Just 333 generations ago - and for 2.5 million years before that - ever human being on Earth ate this way. It is the diet to which all of us are ideally suited and the lifetime nutritional plan that will normalize your weight and improve your health. I didn't design this diet - nature did. This diet has been built into our genes.


Many modern foods are at odds with our genetic makeup which, as we'll discuss in the book, is basically the same as that of our Paleolithic ancestors and the cause of many of our modern diseases.


We are designed to run best on the wild plant and animal foods that all human beings gathered and hunted just 333 generations ago. The staples of today's diet - cereal, dairy products, refined sugars, fatty meats, and salted, processed foods - are like diesel fuel to our bodies' metabolic machinery. The foods clog our engines, make us fat, and cause disease and ill health.

I suppose the crux of the issue is whether grains, dairy, potatoes and legumes are or aren't good for you, whether the human system has or hasn't adapted to these foods. I'm not a food scientist so I don't know for sure, but I have double checked all the claims against these foods, such as the anti-nutrients and lectins, and other toxins, gluten, omega 6 Vs omega 3 fats, excess sugar and salt (obviously not good but I checked anyway) and found that all of these things, not surprisingly, aren't particularly good for you! All of these things are found in grain, dairy, potatoes and legumes. So it seemed wise to be on the safe side and cut them out anyway and substitute them for meats, fish, fruit and veg. Where's the issue there?

Of course I thought cutting our dairy, especially milk, is surely not a good thing due to the lack of calcium in my diet. Wrong. I'm now getting more calcium, due in particular to the large amount of leafy green veg I am now consuming, not to mention all the other added benefits that go with it, such as the total superiority of vitamins and minerals in such veg over the alternatives.

Interestingly, when humans did discover grains, dairy and legumes at the end of the Paleolithic, guess what happened to our health? A massive deterioration in ill health, the like of which had not been seen since the introduction of trans-fatty, corn starch-processed packages of salt and sugar - IBS/diabetes in a box - that were introduced as food in the late 60s/70s and continue to be eaten by a large section of the population today.


The archaeological record clearly shows that whenever and wherever ancient humans sowed seeds (and replaced the old animal dominated diets) part of the harvest included health problems. One physical ramification of the new diet was immediately obvious: early farmers were markedly shorter than their ancestors. In Turkey and Greece, for example, preagicultural men stood 5 feet 9 inches tall and women 5 feet 5 inches. By 3000 BC, the average man had shrunk to 5 feet 3 inches and the average woman 5 feet.

But getting shorter - not in itself a health problem - was the least of the changes in these early farmers. Studies of their bones and teeth have revealed that these people were basically a mess: they had more infectious diseases than their ancestors, more childhood mortality, and shorter life spans in general. They also had more osteoporosis, rickets, and other bone mineral disorders, thanks to the cereal based diets. For the first time, humans were plagued with vitamin and mineral deficiency diseases - scurvy, beriberi, pellagra, vitamin A and zinc deficiencies, and iron-deficiency anemia. Instead of the well-formed, strong teeth their ancestors had, there were now cavities. Their jaws, which were formerly square and roomy, were suddenly too small for their teeth, which overlapped each other.

The health picture got worse over the years with the arrival of salt, fatty cheeses, and butter...

So anyway, you will see that the 'Paleo diet' is far from illogical; it is actually very logical because you are only eating foods that are good for you, foods that your body has adapted to. The 'progress' of agriculture, in terms of health, according to what I have read - research, is not something that I particularly want. Even if grains and veg are OK together, 'in moderation, in moderation' as they chant, surely fish and veg, for example, are even better? Or should I swap fish and veg for pizza and chips in order to get my daily portion of grains and dairy?

[qimissung]

Maybe. But everything in moderation, Neely. I think, also, clopin, that if the foods Neely is eating make him feel good, really good, who among us should gainsay him? He feels great. I think that's proof enough.

I will say that scientists used to think that a calorie was a calorie, but they are now questioning that former truism. It seems that carbs are not as good for us as previously thought. The latest research:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/what-really-makes-us-fat.html?_r=0

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes I certainly feel better for it and I do not miss pizza, bread or beer. In fact I had two beers last Saturday (that's two for the week instead of twenty-two) and it didn't do much for me at all, I think this is because I have been drinking smoothies (and water) and I'm after more that sweetness of taste not bitterness.

Anyway, I found a very fun and interactive (video clips) guide to the Paleo, complete with lego men and everything. Seriously, it is good though:

http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/10/04/the-beginners-guide-to-the-paleo-diet/

[qimissung]

OK, and read the article, Neely. It supports your argument.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Good stuff. There are a few good links from the link that are interesting as well.

[Gladys]

My decades long diet, which began as Pritikin, is today not too different from the Paleolithic diet. On reading Wikipedia on the Paleolithic diet I've plucked some interesting quotes.



However, one expert involved in the ranking stated that a "true Paleo diet might be a great option: very lean, pure meats, lots of wild plants. The modern approximations… are far from it." He quickly added that "duplicating such a regimen in modern times would be difficult."

My butcher's red meat, for instance, may not provide the health benefits of wild game. So alternatives, like legumes, may be in order.



In response to this argument, Wolfgang Kopp states that "we have to take into account that death from atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD) occurs later during life, as a rule after the reproduction phase. Even a high mortality from CVD after the reproduction phase will create little selection pressure. Thus, it seems that a diet can be functional (it keeps us going) and dysfunctional (it causes health problems) at the same time."

Evolution (and a paleolithic diet) may not have favoured a long lifespan - healthy in old age - for humans! So why eat it?



There is evidence that Paleolithic societies were processing cereals for food use at least as early as 23,000[91][92] or 30,000 years ago,[93] and possibly as early as 105,000[94] or 200,000 years ago.



However, great disparities do exist, even between different modern hunter-gatherer societies.

Not all humans evolved eating a similar diet - as we see today with racial differences for food tolerance. So which variant is right for us?



Marion Nestle, a professor in the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at New York University, judging from research relating nutritional factors to chronic disease risks and to observations of exceptionally low chronic disease rates among people eating vegetarian, Mediterranean and Asian diets, has suggested that plant-based diets may be most associated with health and longevity.

Vegan is best?



It has been estimated that people in the Paleolithic era consumed 11,000 mg of potassium and 700 mg of sodium daily.

That sodium value is extraordinarily low - I should know because it's around my own daily intake.

---

This dietary debate is likely to continue for a millennia at least.

[Clopin]

"Evolution (and a paleolithic diet) may not have favoured a long lifespan - healthy in old age - for humans! So why eat it? "

Don't bother reading the thread or anything. That would be silly.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes, don't bother much with the Wiki, try the two links I posted earlier:
http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010...he-paleo-diet/

Do NOT eat legumes in place of red meat, try instead lean chicken or turkey.

Only very few grains were eaten by some tribes in limited supply. 'Grains were starvation food at best.'

Vegan is not best, Paleo is best!

Sodium Vs potassium levels are quite correct, this is because there is NO consumption of any added salt.

----

Bought some new scales, 3 or 4lb lighter, now at 11st, 3oz.

Going on a 70ish mile bike ride. I have to do something to burn all of the energy off - I'm walking up the walls!

See you later.

[Gladys]

As for Wikipedia, having read most of links I was simply looking for a more independent and dispassionate viewpoint. I take your point about the sporadic nature of paleolithic consumption of grains. And you're right, except for the occasional low salt spread, thinly applied, I do not eat processed foods with added sodium. As for "Paleo is best", I'm inclined to side with Wiki: Which Paleo?


"Evolution (and a paleolithic diet) may not have favoured a long lifespan - healthy in old age - for humans! So why eat it? "

Don't bother reading the thread or anything. That would be silly.

As it happens, I had read the whole thread. Perhaps, you could be so kind as to point me to earlier posts dealing with why evolution should care a toss about our good health after the age of procreation? :)

[LitNetIsGreat]

"Evolution (and a paleolithic diet) may not have favoured a long lifespan - healthy in old age - for humans! So why eat it? "


So why eat it?

Because where evidence (and common sense) is available, fish, lean meats, fruit and vegetables are much better for you than donuts/pizza for breakfast, McDonald’s, 16oz refills of coke, chocolate bars, cookies, and a thousand other salt and sugar laden processed foods, in all their disguises, common in the Western diet. Seeing as the Western diet has given us more fat and obese people (there are more overweight American’s than there are in the normal range) epidemic levels of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, depression, degenerative diseases such as IBS, alcoholism, a host of issues relating to vitamin and mineral deficiency, and god knows what else, I think the question should be why not eat it? I do not believe that nature/evolution suddenly kills you off after reproduction. Surely, the best bet for a healthy old age is to lead a healthy life consisting of healthy food and exercise?


I'm inclined to side with Wiki: Which Paleo?

I read through the Wiki article again and I think the bit you are referring to relates the wide ranging diets when you take into account, for example, an Eskimos diet of around 98% animal protein due to the obvious lack of plant food available. According to what I have read, because the Eskimos make up such a tiny percentage (0.2?) of the available data, it somewhat skewers the overall picture which is that the vast majority of hunter-gathers lived on a mixed diet of animal proteins and whatever they could forage in terms of vegetables, fruits, nuts, mushrooms etc. Obviously this is going to vary from region to region and from times of hardship and plenty, but it is clear that some sliding scale of animal proteins Vs foraged food made up their entire diet, aside from the small traces of grains found in limited supply. It has also been argued that in terms of energy expenditure Vs energy loss it would have made far more sense in consuming, where available, animal proteins the more, the better. It would not have made sense expending 1000 calories hunting a 300 calorie squirrel. Cordain suggests that the greater amount of protein from larger game the better. This would have consisted of the eating the whole carcass of the animal, especially the brain and bone marrow, which were particular favourites! It is also supported by the human gut that can only take in so much vegetable matter, in stark comparison to the Chimpanzee for example who can consume many times our own. So the overall suggestion is the more protein the better – the ideal being around 40-55% with the rest made up of vegetable matter, but in times of hardship it would seem likely that humans would have to have survived on whatever they could forage – mushrooms, wild fruits and veg etc.

In terms of the modern Paleo - brains, bone marrow and fruit and vegetable that now do not exist, are, not surprisingly, not on the menu. This means that a substitution to lean meats, fish, fresh fruits and vegetable and a few nuts make up the majority of the diet (lifestyle). Lean meats not because the hunter-gatherer would not have relished animal fat where available, they would, but to reflect the fact that modern farming methods means that our animals consist of a much higher fat percentage Vs the leaner wild varieties. I suppose the very best Paleo diet would consist of game meats and organic fruits and veg, but the alternative of lean meats – chicken/turkey breast, pork, fish and whatever fruit and veg you can get from the supermarket is the next best.

One criticism of the diet is that "duplicating such a regimen in modern times would be difficult." (Wiki and a common criticism.)

Well I suppose this is down to the individual. Personally I have not found it so difficult at all, in fact it makes shopping very easy as I said before. I tend to get as much stuff from the market as I can, as it is much cheaper than the supermarkets, and better quality in terms of meat, but you can just as easily get everything you wanted from the supermarket if you have to. In term of eating out, it is easy to swap chips for veg in a café/pub, or even the occasional grain or dairy product once a week is not a problem. I have found that Innocent Fruit Smoothies, which I always used to have anyway, but less frequently, are becoming a daily thing. They are a great way to get in a lot of fruit in one go, easy and conveniently. My typical breakfast is a banana and glass of smoothie, though today being Sunday I fancied a fri-up Paleo style – a bit of pork and chicken with tomatoes, onions and carrot. Watermelons are great as well as you can munch away and they are pretty light and refreshing – I get through 2-3 of them a week, they are also crammed full of vitamin A and C. Broccoli is good as well. I’ve basically swapped beer, pizza, bread and pasta for fish/pork/chicken, fruit and veg and look and feel a hell of a lot better for it.

[LitNetIsGreat]

There is an interesting lecture below on nutrition and behaviour:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/russell-blaylock-nutrition-and-behavior-aspartame/

It is not a 'Paleo documentary' however the arguments completely support the Paleo diet/lifestyle.

[Calidore]

Going through the link Neely provided to Dr. Balzer's document, here are some questions and thoughts:

1. The unattributed claim that all remaining hunter-gatherer tribes are marvels of physical perfection because of their paleo-equivalent diet. What exactly is the basis for this claim?

1a. When people talk about the physical problems facing our society, we usually hear two things: Too much crap food, and we're way too sedentary. Here, diet is conveniently given sole credit, with no mention of their much higher level of physical activity. The objective already seems to be not to encourage people do do what's healthier, but to buy into this diet.

2. "At the technical level, Paleolithic Diet Theory has a depth and breadth that is unmatched by all other dietary theories. Paleolithic Diet Theory presents a fully integrated, holistic, comprehensive dietary theory combining the best features of all other dietary theories, eliminating the worst features and simplifying it all." That is pure sales pitch. It's also, as the 22 nutrition/health professionals who evaluated 25 diet plans for U.S. News & World Report showed when they ranked the paleo diet at the bottom, not the case. (I do need to correct a statement I made in an earlier post. I had said that the paleo diet was ranked "dead last", when in fact it was tied for last with the Dukan diet.)

3. Have any studies been done that support the claim that the paleo diet is "encoded in our genes"? I'm not even sure what exactly that means. Is it like saying that cows don't eat meat because a carnivorous diet is not in their genes?

4. "Have you ever wondered why almost everybody feels the need to take vitamin supplements at times, or why so many people feel the need to "detoxify" their system?" This one made me laugh. It's for the same reason that people buy into prepackaged, named diets rather than simply eating better--they were told they needed to by people with something to sell. Though I'm not sure "almost everybody" isn't a stretch.

5. Outright lie: About grains, beans, and potatoes, he says, "They are extremely poor sources of vitamins (particularly vitamins A, B-group, folic acid and C), minerals, antioxidants and phytosterols." This is completely false. Whole grains and legumes are loaded with B-vitamins, several important minerals, antioxidants, and phytochemicals. Potatoes don't seem to be as good, but they do have vitamin C and Bs, and very good amounts of antioxidants and phytochemicals as well.

After that one, I have to admit to skimming the rest, so only one more question from this article.

6. The whole lectin thing is very interesting, but this guy no longer has credibility, so I don't know what I can believe. It gets even worse when he says, "I have no doubt that they play a major role in many 'unexplained' diseases."

7. Neely, you also quoted something (where was that from?) that talked about health deterioration and changes in height that came with the switch to farming from hunting/gathering. The Wikipedia article on the Neolithic Revolution says under the Disease subheading (with attributions):

Throughout the development of sedentary societies, disease spread more rapidly than it had during the time in which hunter-gatherer societies existed. Inadequate sanitary practices and the domestication of animals may explain the rise in deaths and sickness following the Neolithic Revolution, as diseases jumped from the animal to the human population. Some examples of diseases spread from animals to humans are influenza, smallpox, and measles.[41]

...and...

The causal link between the type or lack of agricultural development, disease and colonisation is not supported by colonization in other parts of the world. Disease increased after the establishment of British Colonial rule in Africa and India despite the areas having diseases for which Europeans lacked natural immunity. In India agriculture developed during the Neolithic period with a wide range of animals domesticated. During colonial rule an estimated 23 million people died from cholera between 1865 and 1949, and millions more died from plague, malaria, influenza and tuberculosis. In Africa European colonisation was accompanied by great epidemics, including malaria and sleeping sickness and despite parts of colonised Africa having little or no agriculture Europeans were more susceptible than the Africans. The increase of disease has been attributed to increased mobility of people, increased population density, urbanisation, environmental deterioration and irrigation schemes that helped to spread malaria rather than the development of agriculture.[43]

7 cont'd. Also, while people's height isn't mentioned there, I'll point out that we're getting taller again (possibly due in part to overall better nutrition as a result of our better understanding of nutrition?).

8. Finally, I have to question the dubious logic behind the diet's general claim that despite our much greater current knowledge of food and nutrition, we can't eat better than we did when we knew next to nothing about either.

To me, this still sounds like something trying to tailor-make itself to sell to people who want easy over comprehensive, for example by eliminating entire categories rather than specific foods. Then make it sound good by coming up with questions that lead to the right answers.

[Clopin]

Check out this guy.jpg

He still cares more about the diets premise and marketing than he does about the obviously healthy food! He just doesn't get that eating fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts and red meat, poultry and fish is extremely healthy no matter what you call it!

[LitNetIsGreat]

7. Neely, you also quoted something (where was that from?) that talked about health deterioration and changes in height that came with the switch to farming from hunting/gathering.

Yes, it is from Cordain’s book, The Paleo Diet – Kindle version:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Paleo-Diet-Designed-ebook/dp/B004GEB9UQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348500683&sr=8-1

I have also read one of Cordain’s other books (co-authored) The Paleo Diet for Athletes (as well as lots of stuff online on it, it’s interesting stuff). The first book is probably your best bet if you want fuller information on the diet, it is a bit repetitive in places but it should answer all your questions and more in more detail than I can give. Cordain seems to be a bit of an authority of the diet having studied it for 20 years and has written lots of paper on it as well. Robb Wolf is another name that keeps cropping up in terms of Paleo as well. I suppose you are quite correct to be sceptical but at the same time I think it is worth looking into. The link your questions come from is just some doctor’s blog which gives a fair overview but lacks detail – still it was ideal to convey the general idea.

Yes the Wiki point’s about the spreading of disease may account for some of the deterioration in human beings since agriculture, but all of it, including dental deterioration, stunted growth, rickets and other diseases common with vitamin deficiency etc? I’m not so sure.


1. The unattributed claim that all remaining hunter-gatherer tribes are marvels of physical perfection because of their paleo-equivalent diet. What exactly is the basis for this claim?

This is covered by Cordain at fair length. He points to many first-hand accounts, journals, diaries, observations etc. I can quote a few later on if need be, if I can find them.



1a. When people talk about the physical problems facing our society, we usually hear two things: Too much crap food, and we're way too sedentary. Here, diet is conveniently given sole credit, with no mention of their much higher level of physical activity. The objective already seems to be not to encourage people do do what's healthier, but to buy into this diet.

No, exercise is covered at great length in both books. I mentioned that a few posts ago. I can quote you some of that too if need be.


2. "At the technical level, Paleolithic Diet Theory has a depth and breadth that is unmatched by all other dietary theories. Paleolithic Diet Theory presents a fully integrated, holistic, comprehensive dietary theory combining the best features of all other dietary theories, eliminating the worst features and simplifying it all." That is pure sales pitch. It's also, as the 22 nutrition/health professionals who evaluated 25 diet plans for U.S. News & World Report showed when they ranked the paleo diet at the bottom, not the case. (I do need to correct a statement I made in an earlier post. I had said that the paleo diet was ranked "dead last", when in fact it was tied for last with the Dukan diet.)

Yes that bit sounds like a used car salesmen, but it doesn’t change the fact that making fish, lean meats and a variety of fruit and veg the main part of your diet is incredibly good for you. In terms of the last placing than that’s hogwash. If these people are insisting that grains, dairy and legumes are actually good for you – especially over fruit and veg – then they are going against much of the latest thought. Clopin’s points against gluten at the start of the thread for example is just franked by more and more things I am reading and seeing, and that’s not exclusive Paleo stuff either. The video lecture I posted above is nothing at all to do with Paleo but grains and dairy still take a bit of a battering . The bottom line for me is a bit of a win/win situation anyway. If I avoid these things I gain far more nutrients from eating fruit and veg regardless anyway - it’s win/win.


3. Have any studies been done that support the claim that the paleo diet is "encoded in our genes"? I'm not even sure what exactly that means. Is it like saying that cows don't eat meat because a carnivorous diet is not in their genes?

I think the argument is that it takes a long time for a species to adapt to new foods (especially if they are poisonous!) Here’s a passage from Paleo for Athletes which might answer your question:

The selection of appropriate food for wild animals in zoos is no hit or miss business. Zookeepers at state of the art facilities like the San Diego Zoo’s Wilde Animal park realised long ago that if they wanted animals to stay healthy and happy and even breed in captivity, they needed to replicate each animal’s natural environment as closely as possible. That meant duplicating diet as well. When lions or any other purely carnivorous cats were fed only raw muscle meat, their health rapidly deteriorated, and they developed vitamin A deficiency and bone loss and eventually died. Careful observations of wild lions in their natural habitat revealed that they ate their prey’s entire carcass, including the organs…and liver rich ribs. Accordingly, both vitamin A deficiency and osteoporosis were averted when these wild animals ate the diet that they were genetically adapted to eat…

All species of animals – whether cats, antelope, or tropical fish – occupy and exploit specific ecological niches and are well suited to their place in the environment. Their genetic makeup reflects their adaptation to their ecological niche, including not only their outward appearance but also the foods they are genetically programmed to eat. When new and different foods are fed to these animals, it almost invariable results in ill health or disease. Zoo keepers know that exotic species of SA monkeys can be kept alive on cereal-based chow, but these animals don’t do well, are prone to disease, and will not reproduce in these conditions.


4. "Have you ever wondered why almost everybody feels the need to take vitamin supplements at times, or why so many people feel the need to "detoxify" their system?" This one made me laugh. It's for the same reason that people buy into prepackaged, named diets rather than simply eating better--they were told they needed to by people with something to sell. Though I'm not sure "almost everybody" isn't a stretch.

You don’t really need to know anything more on the ‘diet’ than eat fish, lean meats, fruits and veg and to be fair to the blogger I don’t think he has a book or anything.


5. Outright lie: About grains, beans, and potatoes, he says, "They are extremely poor sources of vitamins (particularly vitamins A, B-group, folic acid and C), minerals, antioxidants and phytosterols." This is completely false. Whole grains and legumes are loaded with B-vitamins, several important minerals, antioxidants, and phytochemicals. Potatoes don't seem to be as good, but they do have vitamin C and Bs, and very good amounts of antioxidants and phytochemicals as well.

Not in comparison with veg, this is the win/win I was talking about earlier. Whatever you can get from grains and legumes in term of nutrition (minus potential health problems and antinutrients) is absolutely nothing compared to veg, especially green leafy veg like spinach or asparagus, I have a selected the vitamin and mineral density chart before me now and the comparisons are stark. Let’s just look at a few because it would be impossible to type the table up.

(Vitamin and mineral density)
Beans: Vitamin A, 18, compared with say broccoli at 478 or spinach 3, 509.
Beans: Potassium 320, compared with asparagus 1, 268, spinach 1, 995.
Whole wheat bread: no vitamin C, 0.1 vitamin B1, 00.2 vitamin B2. Compared with broccoli: Vitamin C 213, B1 0.3, B2 0.7.

And on and on and on. Really you are just doing yourself a massive favour swapping the likes of bread and beans for veg, every time, win/win.



After that one, I have to admit to skimming the rest, so only one more question from this article.

6. The whole lectin thing is very interesting, but this guy no longer has credibility, so I don't know what I can believe. It gets even worse when he says, "I have no doubt that they play a major role in many 'unexplained' diseases."

Lectin’s and other anti-nutrients come up quite a lot. Try googling lectin’s; they don’t seem very nice.



7 cont'd. Also, while people's height isn't mentioned there, I'll point out that we're getting taller again (possibly due in part to overall better nutrition as a result of our better understanding of nutrition?).

We’re getting taller because of a massive abundance of food never before seen in the history of human civilisation probably. However, when you look around in public is everyone you see lean, fit, full of energy and the perfect picture of health? I think not.


8. Finally, I have to question the dubious logic behind the diet's general claim that despite our much greater current knowledge of food and nutrition, we can't eat better than we did when we knew next to nothing about either.

I don’t think the logic behind the ‘diet’ is dubious at all, I think it makes perfect sense to be honest.


To me, this still sounds like something trying to tailor-make itself to sell to people who want easy over comprehensive, for example by eliminating entire categories rather than specific foods. Then make it sound good by coming up with questions that lead to the right answers.

Again though it is win/win. You drop grains, diary and legumes on the basis that they might be harmful and replace them with fruit and veg and lean meats. If they are not harmful and it is all a big lie, then you get a superior vitamin and mineral richer diet. If it is not a big lie, then you get this minus the potential anti-nutrients, allergies and potential intolerances.

Anyway, if you are interested I would recommend the first Cordain book (or try to google some of this articles) and trying it yourself for a week or so, see how you feel.

[Clopin]

He's more concerned with the possibility that our paleolithic ancestors might not have been as tall or lived as long as us to actually consider eating healthier, or looking at the foods the diet includes unbiasedly.

[Gladys]

Because where evidence (and common sense) is available, fish, lean meats, fruit and vegetables are much better for you than donuts/pizza for breakfast, McDonald’s, 16oz refills of coke, chocolate bars, cookies, and a thousand other salt and sugar laden processed foods, in all their disguises, common in the Western diet ... Surely, the best bet for a healthy old age is to lead a healthy life consisting of healthy food and exercise?

No argument from me. As I said first up, I've been on a no salt, no sugar, low saturated fat, and almost no processed foods diet for three decades; a diet very high in fresh fruit and vegetables (no juice). I choose foods on the basis of health not taste, and have been following health research for decades. For over a decade I have greatly reduced my whole grain, dairy and red meat intake, while tripling nuts, legumes, fish and olive oil.

I rejected the Western diet a long, long time ago - and a radical rejection it was, thanks to the late Nathan Pritikin. Therefore my criticisms stem from comparing the minutia of Paleolithic diet and others akin to mine. And my criteria for acceptance depends on balancing a plethora of research findings rather than bowing down to some supposed philosophical purity.


8. Finally, I have to question the dubious logic behind the diet's general claim that despite our much greater current knowledge of food and nutrition, we can't eat better than we did when we knew next to nothing about either.

For instance, in the past decade I have read considerable research suggesting that legumes healthy and even more to suggest that red meat is not. I say, "Show me all the competing research evidence, and spare me the hype."

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh yes I see. The ground for rejecting legumes concern the lectins again:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aMyNiIDIekcC&pg=PT104&lpg=PT104&dq=saponin+green+peas&source=bl&ots=h0fGzRYlC4&sig=8XFtQ07s8vInTd9svg9eNRb-uk0&hl=en&ei=sOTcTrqDPfPJiQL9oPCCCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=saponin%20green%20peas&f=false

However, I have also read elsewhere that lectins from grains are much worse and that with legumes you have the added bonus of a greater nutritional payoff, no gluten and high protein, so it is certainly not all bad. Though one argument still is that you can get a greater level of nutrition from fruit and veg over legumes. However, you’ve obviously read a lot more than me on the subject so know doubt you are well read on it and if they work for you it’s not an issue.

In terms of red meats, in the Paleo literature I have been reading red meats are not greatly pushed at all – probably not even one meal in ten, and when they are it is meat from grass fed cattle, not grain fed cattle. I’m sure that makes a difference. Meats on the Paleo that are recommended are chicken/turkey (and then only breast meat), fish and seafood in general, pork (lean) and then lean beef. So red meat is certainly not central to the fats and protein element of the diet at all.

[Gladys]

A problem I see in literature for the Paleolithic Diet, and for many others, is the cocky way advocates generally quote research. Let me try to illustrate the fallacy in this.

Blood cholesterol has been implicated in heart disease since the 1970's, and has been subject to a thousand studies worldwide, many small and a few huge. Lower your total cholesterol was the consistent message in the first decade. I am no expert here but bear with me.

Later followed a variety of less than consistent findings, dealing with the impacts of chylomicrons, very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) among other things. In particular HDL cholesterol was deemed the good cholesterol.

Recently the bad cholesterol, LDL, has been shown to exist in varying particle sizes, and people with the smallest sized LDL seem at most risk. And increasing one's HDL might not increase cardiovascular health! The effect of triglycerides, insulin resistance, inflammation and viruses, for example, continue to complicate the picture. And now low bad cholesterol, LDL, may be tied to cancer risk.

If you wish to make your fortune writing on cholesterol and your latest greatest diet, you might carefully select a few of all these thousand studies, ignoring the rest, to "prove" a particular point - almost any point you desire.

To be confident in giving dietary advice, citing a handful of research studies generally won't do. An intelligent synthesis of many, many studies is often essential - balancing all the contradicting findings. Reservation in presenting your assertions is surely a must: there is no room for zealots here.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes well, they are all like that and media are only too quick to jump on the party for a quick headline. That's why I can understand it when people are so resistant to things such as the Paleo or any latest health claim (though the Paleo is not a latest health claim, as some of the literature is well over 10 years old).

---
I watched an interesting documentary the other day called Food Matters (below). Well some of it was interesting, some of it I think was pushing agendas a little too much but the bit that caught my attention was the positive claims of vitamins, especially vitamin C. They were suggesting that massive amounts of vitamin C could help for a variety of aliments, including cancer, and that vitamin overdose is virtually impossible. I don't know if you have heard about any of this in your reading at all?

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/food-matters/

Oh, I've found an interview with Cordain, I've not seen it yet but it is here if anybody is interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52A3ayfxfTs

[Calidore]

Yes the Wiki point’s about the spreading of disease may account for some of the deterioration in human beings since agriculture, but all of it, including dental deterioration, stunted growth, rickets and other diseases common with vitamin deficiency etc? I’m not so sure.

I'm sure it had something to do with the new diet also. Got a thought on that below.


No, exercise is covered at great length in both books. I mentioned that a few posts ago.

Yes, you did. My bad.


Yes that bit sounds like a used car salesmen, but it doesn’t change the fact that making fish, lean meats and a variety of fruit and veg the main part of your diet is incredibly good for you.

Well, sure, but every diet has that as a basis. Where they differ is in the particulars for each food type.


In terms of the last placing than that’s hogwash. If these people are insisting that grains, dairy and legumes are actually good for you – especially over fruit and veg – then they are going against much of the latest thought.

That's where I start wondering: Whose latest thought? Who is it whose word trumps the 22 health and nutrition professionals USNWR picked for their panel, and why?


Clopin’s points against gluten at the start of the thread for example is just franked by more and more things I am reading and seeing, and that’s not exclusive Paleo stuff either. The video lecture I posted above is nothing at all to do with Paleo but grains and dairy still take a bit of a battering . The bottom line for me is a bit of a win/win situation anyway. If I avoid these things I gain far more nutrients from eating fruit and veg regardless anyway - it’s win/win.

On the other hand, wholegrainscouncil.org can give you a bunch of reasons why whole grains are just terrific, and the health benefits of eating more whole grains vs. red meat, to choose one example from the site. Obviously they're not unbiased with a name like that, but certainly there's a grain (sorry) of truth to their claims, just as there is with paleo. Vegetarians/vegans also have lots of biological reasons for saying we should do away with meat and only eat vegetables, legumes, grains, etc.

The truth as I see it is, there's such a huge variety of available foods, none perfect, that anyone can find a basis for any agenda they want to promote.



The selection of appropriate food for wild animals in zoos is no hit or miss business. Zookeepers at state of the art facilities like the San Diego Zoo’s Wilde Animal park realised long ago that if they wanted animals to stay healthy and happy and even breed in captivity, they needed to replicate each animal’s natural environment as closely as possible. That meant duplicating diet as well. When lions or any other purely carnivorous cats were fed only raw muscle meat, their health rapidly deteriorated, and they developed vitamin A deficiency and bone loss and eventually died. Careful observations of wild lions in their natural habitat revealed that they ate their prey’s entire carcass, including the organs…and liver rich ribs. Accordingly, both vitamin A deficiency and osteoporosis were averted when these wild animals ate the diet that they were genetically adapted to eat…


Wow. It boggles my mind that a world-class zoo like San Diego wouldn't think to watch those animals in the wild first.


All species of animals – whether cats, antelope, or tropical fish – occupy and exploit specific ecological niches and are well suited to their place in the environment. Their genetic makeup reflects their adaptation to their ecological niche, including not only their outward appearance but also the foods they are genetically programmed to eat. When new and different foods are fed to these animals, it almost invariable results in ill health or disease. Zoo keepers know that exotic species of SA monkeys can be kept alive on cereal-based chow, but these animals don’t do well, are prone to disease, and will not reproduce in these conditions.

About halfway through that paragraph is where I start questioning again. His statement that new and different = illness and disease is just a paleo-friendly generalization. Obviously, changing an animal's diet without as in-depth an understanding of its systems as we have with our own is a bad idea, but that doesn't mean their diet can't be improved.

By the same token, and regarding the Wiki quote up top, I expect that would be the reason post-agricultural humans had initial health problems: They were changing from their "natural" diet to a diet of convenience, but without any understanding of diet and nutrition in general. It's convenient for Cordain's purposes to blame the new foods themselves, but I think the blame goes to simple ignorance. Today, we know more and eat better than they did, and are much healthier. For that matter, I think our current understanding of safe food preparation--especially in regards to meat--has us much better off than even the original paleo-eaters.



Not in comparison with veg, this is the win/win I was talking about earlier. Whatever you can get from grains and legumes in term of nutrition (minus potential health problems and antinutrients) is absolutely nothing compared to veg, especially green leafy veg like spinach or asparagus, I have a selected the vitamin and mineral density chart before me now and the comparisons are stark. Let’s just look at a few because it would be impossible to type the table up.

(Vitamin and mineral density)
Beans: Vitamin A, 18, compared with say broccoli at 478 or spinach 3, 509.
Beans: Potassium 320, compared with asparagus 1, 268, spinach 1, 995.
Whole wheat bread: no vitamin C, 0.1 vitamin B1, 00.2 vitamin B2. Compared with broccoli: Vitamin C 213, B1 0.3, B2 0.7.


I'd like to see the chart if you have a link (no, don't type the whole thing).

Noticed immediately: Beans are treated as a whole for some reason, while individual vegetables are used. Also, I don't blame them for switching from "beans" to wheat bread for comparing B1, since black beans, for example, have B1 all over broccoli.

In general, beans are stronger in minerals (though generally good for B vitamins as well), while veggies are stronger in vitamins (though can be good sources for some minerals also). However, there are always exceptions, which can easily be pulled out at will to make whatever point an author wants to make. Legumes do kick it over pretty much everything else for soluble fiber (which is especially good if you're eating more meat).

I suspect in general that I could do the same thing: pull out several vegetables that would have to take the place of one type of bean, since everything has different proportions of everything.

Note: I'm not touting the superiority of legumes to vegetables, just disputing the vice versa, and also doubting that an even comparison can be made, since they're such different beasts.




Lectin’s and other anti-nutrients come up quite a lot. Try googling lectin’s; they don’t seem very nice.

Did that, and no, they don't. Also, while looking, I discovered one guy touting a "blood type" diet, where he claims that different lectins bond to different blood types and have no effect on the others. As with all diets, this one seems to have a small basis in fact (some lectins apparently bond better with certain blood types), but his overall claims aren't supported by any science but his. Nevertheless, he made it sound good enough to get a few celebrity endorsements, and is selling books.

Other sources high in lectins besides (some? many? all?) whole grains and beans: Nuts and seeds, cow's milk, fish and shellfish, and eggplants, potatoes, tomatoes and relatives. Most of those are paleo-approved foods. Translation: Lectin is a reason to avoid foods that don't fit the diet, but irrelevant in foods that do.


We’re getting taller because of a massive abundance of food never before seen in the history of human civilisation probably. However, when you look around in public is everyone you see lean, fit, full of energy and the perfect picture of health? I think not.

Definitely not, but is any attempt being made to separate out the effects of processed, de-nutritionalized foods, which everyone agrees are best avoided?


I don’t think the logic behind the ‘diet’ is dubious at all, I think it makes perfect sense to be honest.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.


Again though it is win/win. You drop grains, diary and legumes on the basis that they might be harmful and replace them with fruit and veg and lean meats. If they are not harmful and it is all a big lie, then you get a superior vitamin and mineral richer diet. If it is not a big lie, then you get this minus the potential anti-nutrients, allergies and potential intolerances.

Well, that's the crux of my issues with paleo: Whether educated consumption of grains, diary and legumes along with fruit and veg and lean meats is really nutritionally inferior to only the fruit and veg and lean meats. Variety and moderation are most important AFAIK, and with less variety (axing entire groups), you get less moderation of what's left, in addition to missing out on the nutritional benefits thereof.

And regarding allergies, I'm afraid I also don't see the logic behind claiming that because certain foods trigger intolerances or allergic reactions in some people, they're bad for everyone.


Anyway, if you are interested I would recommend the first Cordain book (or try to google some of this articles) and trying it yourself for a week or so, see how you feel.

Well, I have little doubt I'd feel some improvement, since I'm not currently on any diet, and paleo is undoubtedly better than nothing. But I'm still seeing selective claims and salesmanship, and so can't buy that it's actually better than any of the higher-rated diets that USNWR wrote up.

I also have to say that it's been wonderful being able to debate someone with an opposite view on something without an ounce of rancor popping out, or a need to convert. I've also learned quite a bit in trying to hold my end up. Thanks!

:cheers2:
^^^^^^ 1 Goose Island beer + 1 G.I. root beer

[LitNetIsGreat]

Hi there,

Make mine a Smoothie for now - though I am having the odd pint on a Saturday’s sometimes.

Just to clear up a few things. I wouldn’t see it as a ‘diet’ diet at all, but simply as a way of eating healthier - so anyone can eat this way, including you if you wanted!

I first came across the Paleo a while back, it must be well over a year now, and I thought it sounded interesting but I didn’t really buy the lack of grain thing and I loved pizzas and bread in general (I used to bake my own all the time, every day at one bit) and I didn’t think much else about it. Then a couple of months ago with getting out on the bike more and playing tennis I was looking to try and improve my performance and get fitter (and maybe lose a few pounds around the slight ‘wheat’ belly – my brother kept taking the mick) so I started looking around and thinking of a few things, like cutting back on beer etc and I also stumbled back to the Paleo.

When I opened the thread on here, out of general interest, I wasn’t really ‘pro-Paleo’ though I thought it sounded interesting (if you look back at the first page you will see this is true and I hadn’t really much idea). However, after reading around more and more and still wanting to get fitter – which was my main goal – I decided to give it a try.

The first week I eased my way into it as you are supposed to do. Actually, at this stage I didn’t really think about doing ‘full Paleo’ maybe just cutting back on pizza and beer, but by the second week I sort of ending up going ‘full Paleo’ or 95% so – the odd coffee or beer at the weekend sort of thing (coffee and beer are ‘allowed’ in moderation anyway) and one bar of chocolate on the Friday after...

Anyway, how did I feel? In a few words – absolutely fantastic!! I felt better in the first week, maybe 60-70% Paleo, but after three days of 100% Paleo I couldn’t believe how I felt. I had loads more energy throughout the day, I was sleeping better and more mentally alert throughout the day, I had also lost 3lb I think it was in the first week. (Oh I’ve just remembered: I wanted to cut down on beer because I was back at work after six weeks off as well, that was part of it too...)

Fast forward to now, I am currently in the fourth week ‘full Paleo’ and I’m just feeling better and better. I’ve not had any bread or grains in four weeks, no legumes, only a very minor amount of dairy (like milk in two coffees and a small bit of custard for a banana), no processed crap – I didn’t eat that anyway, no added salt or sugar or sauces of any kind, just say two beers on the Sat, the odd coffee and one bar of chocolate, the rest has totally consisted of fish, lean meats, fruits and veg and a few nuts (olive oil for cooking only).

The result of this has been:

• A feeling of being totally energised throughout the day. Gone is the ‘slump’ in the middle of the day or after a meal. I’ve never had as much energy.
• Mental alertness throughout the day
• A loss of about 10lb of body fat
• Looking much leaner and fitter
• A massive improvement in my overall fitness level – I am stronger, faster and fitter than I have ever been. I am turning over gears on my bike, uphill, that I never even got in before downhill! In term of press-ups: I did as many as I could before I started the diet and managed 9. Last week I managed 43! (This a number that would qualify me for the army as part of their fitness test is 42 in 2 minutes)
• I used to feel a little irritable in the morning with stomach cramps, these are totally gone (maybe too much wheat, I have no idea? Win/win again.)
• My teeth are whiter/cleaner! (maybe this is due to the absence of tea and coffee?)
• Much better quality sleep
• I look ‘fresher’ in the face/possible better quality skin or maybe I’m just imagining it?

It has been from my personal experience with eating like this that has very much put me in the ‘pro’ camp. I certainly don’t feel like I have been ‘sold’ anything by reading somebody’s blog. Though where I have been reading around, and I am talking about the books mentioned, blogs, forums (yes there is a Paleo forum I discovered yesterday) and even Youtube comments; the improvements above are totally concurrent with about 9/10 of other people who have started eating this way. Most mention the feeling of being energised well within the first week. The other 1/10 person seems to complain of tiredness, I have no idea how, perhaps they are not getting enough fruit? Fruit has slow burning sugars, fructose that releases energy slowly throughout the day – maybe that is where I am getting my energy from? Anyway, just to make the point that I am very much going by how I am feeling here and I’m certainly not saying I am an expert in the literature of it, though I am more than willing to relate what I have been reading as well (though yes I’m certainly not trying to ‘convert’ – and I don’t have a book to sell - honest).

In terms of that chart you mentioned, I’m afraid it is in the book Paleo for Athletes. Also it was my mistake, I said ‘beans’ and I think it said ‘baked beans’ so they wasn’t trying to pair off the best of veg and broadly relate beans as a category. Also, they do mention that lectins in other foods, just that I think they said the lectins found in grains are more harmful, along with other anti-nutrients. Grains seem to take the biggest criticism over dairy and beans and of course processed junk food is criticised, that’s really taken as given.

Yes you are going to get experts arguing for and against grains. Cordain himself is a professional nutritionist and has written many papers that have been published in top scientific journals. I have read one as well. You can find some of them online. The bottom line though is that with the above results I’m seeing I don’t care one way or the other. As I said before it is win/win for me – I’m winning with superior nutrition regardless if grains are or aren’t good for you – fruit and veg is vastly superior to bread, especially white bread and I’m winning if grains are harmful for you because I’m not eating them! So you see it is win/win.

For example this is how I am eating:

Today

Breakfast – handful of blueberries and a few carrot pieces. Water. (I wasn’t that hungry this morning, I usually have a banana and smoothie, pork fri-up on a Sat)

Snack – handful of raspberries and a few more carrot pieces.


Dinner – Smoked salmon (Scottish), spinach, carrots, tomatoes. Half a tub of blueberries. Handful of raspberries, a fig and just a few nuts. Water, half a glass of mango smoothie.

Snack – finished off those blueberries (I bought 7 packs the day before as I have not had them in over a week)

Tea/lunch – Fried chicken and steak with veg – broccoli, asparagus, greens, carrot, red peppers, onion, garlic, ginger, chillies. Vitamin C drink in water.

After a game of tennis – water and two glasses of strawberry based smoothie.

Supper – maybe have a few blueberries, maybe a little bit of chicken?


So if you contrast this with a ‘typical’ western style diet, or even what I was eating before, you can see that it is superior in terms of nutrition, regardless of the lectin debate. Or even contrast that with my own work dinner pre-Paleo:

Cheese and onion sandwich with a bag of crisps. A few biscuits and a (token) banana. Coffee with sugar.

Well that is more ‘balanced’ because it contains grains, dairy, fruit and veg, so according to standard pyramids (those who slam the Paleo into 22nd perhaps?) that is much better. Not a bloody chance!

On top of all of this are the long-term health claims of the diet. That is of course an elimination of the so called diseases of civilisation - heart disease (the biggest killer in the West), diabetes, cancer, auto-immunity diseases and on and on...

[Gladys]

I enjoyed reading your inspirational last post. As for your diet today: smoked food tend to have high carcinogen levels, and high temperature frying tends to damage food in more ways than one. Is your smoothie home made?


They were suggesting that massive amounts of vitamin C could help for a variety of aliments, including cancer, and that vitamin overdose is virtually impossible.

Up to 1g of vitamin C a day seems reasonable. Mega-doses of Vitamin C were much vaunted in the 1970's by the great scientist Linus Pauling. And intravenous mega-doses of vitamin C are of current research interest but, unfortunately, oral mega-doses seem to be overrated and may cause minor health problems:

vitamin c and cancer: what can we conclude-1,609 Patients and 33 Years later? (http://prhsj.rcm.upr.edu/index.php/prhsj/article/view/518/354)

Megadose Vitamin Therapy for Cancer (https://highlevelwellness.ca/megadose-vitamin-therapy-for-cancer/)

Vitamin C megadosage (http://enc.tfode.com/Vitamin_C_megadose)

[TheFifthElement]

It certainly sounds like you're feeling good Neely; a better sales pitch for the diet than any evolutionary argument and your fruit/veg consumption levels are truly admirable. I'm sure it can't be bad for you. I'm considering trying part Paleo (I don't have your willpower when it comes to the weekly pizza...or at least trying to get the hubby off the weekly pizza), but am curious about a couple of things, as follows:

1) are there any issues with the Paleo diet and kidney health? High protein diets & kidneys aren't a great match (though I think the issue is more when your kidneys are already screwed...like mine are!) - have you come across any advice on this?

2) Also, accepting that dietary science is a murky world, there are some suggestions that high protein diets can accelerate bone loss - again, have you read anything about this or how to counter it?

I'm not convinced on the legumes thing, or that grains are as bad for us as the diet seems to suggest, primarily on account of the Japanese diet being considered so healthy when it's largely based on rice and soya beans, but then the Japanese tend to have smaller portion sizes and a greater dependence on vegetables so perhaps it is about balance. I think in the 'western' style diet we have too heavy a reliance on bread & potatoes so perhaps cutting these out for a couple of meals a day is a good idea.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I enjoyed reading your inspirational last post. As for your diet today: smoked food tend to have high carcinogen levels, and high temperature frying tends to damage food in more ways than one. Is your smoothie home made?

Oh great. I don’t normally eat salmon smoked anyway. Yes I try not to stir-fri too many meals. I have started broiling/boiling my chicken in just water and only lightly steaming the veg, I do this every other meal, I just find my big wok quite handy going. I used to do my own smoothies last year but in the end I found that it wasn’t worth the hassle and instead I tend to buy Innocent Smoothies: http://www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/things-we-make/smoothies
These are fantastic. Absolutely nothing added but whole fruit in great flavours. I’ve got two of those monster value packs in the fridge at the moment.


Up to 1g of vitamin C a day seems reasonable. Mega-doses of Vitamin C were much vaunted in the 1970's by the great scientist Linus Pauling. And intravenous mega-doses of vitamin C are of current research interest but, unfortunately, oral mega-doses seem to be overrated and may cause minor health problems:

vitamin c and cancer: what can we conclude-1,609 Patients and 33 Years later? (http://prhsj.rcm.upr.edu/index.php/prhsj/article/view/518/354)

Megadose Vitamin Therapy for Cancer (https://highlevelwellness.ca/megadose-vitamin-therapy-for-cancer/)

Vitamin C megadosage (http://enc.tfode.com/Vitamin_C_megadose)

Thanks, I’ll have a read of those properly after tea.


It certainly sounds like you're feeling good Neely; a better sales pitch for the diet than any evolutionary argument and your fruit/veg consumption levels are truly admirable. I'm sure it can't be bad for you. I'm considering trying part Paleo (I don't have your willpower when it comes to the weekly pizza...or at least trying to get the hubby off the weekly pizza), but am curious about a couple of things, as follows:

Oh great, it would be interesting to see if you feel any better for it if you decide to have a go even partly. Strange I don’t miss pizza despite being addicted to it previously. I do fancy chocolate more than before though – it might be that I decide to have a bar of chocolate once a week or something like that. Far from the end of the world.


1) are there any issues with the Paleo diet and kidney health? High protein diets & kidneys aren't a great match (though I think the issue is more when your kidneys are already screwed...like mine are!) - have you come across any advice on this?

Oh right, sorry to hear about that. I haven’t read too much on that, only that high protein diets don’t cause kidney problems by themselves but it might affect you if you have kidney issues, like you say. If I come across any advice on this I will post it up, though best be on the safe side and not increase protein intake for now perhaps. This would interfere with your chances of eating Paleo style I would have thought as it is higher in protein. Not sure what to suggest then - maybe swapping grains for fruit and veg would be a potential option? I'll look around about it.


2) Also, accepting that dietary science is a murky world, there are some suggestions that high protein diets can accelerate bone loss - again, have you read anything about this or how to counter it?

No I don’t think so. In fact the high levels of fruit and veg, vitamins and minerals, on the diet (and calcium if you eat green veg) means that it will improve any bone issues. There are no other issues with high protein intake if you are eating fruit and veg as well – this is according to Cordain in The Paleo Diet. Protein makes up around 19-35% of this diet. He says that most of us are getting only half of the protein we need and that a low protein intake contributes to ‘weight gain and a high blood cholesterol level and increases your risk of many chronic diseases.’ If you over-eat protein over 35% of your daily intake regularly your body will tell you. He says “the body has clear limits, determined by the liver’s inability to handle excess dietary nitrogen. If you exceed this limit for a prolonged stretch of time, your body will protest” in terms of nausea etc. Though like he says ‘when it is accompanied with plenty of fruits and veggies and good fats and oils, you will never have to worry about getting too much protein.”


I'm not convinced on the legumes thing, or that grains are as bad for us as the diet seems to suggest, primarily on account of the Japanese diet being considered so healthy when it's largely based on rice and soya beans, but then the Japanese tend to have smaller portion sizes and a greater dependence on vegetables so perhaps it is about balance. I think in the 'western' style diet we have too heavy a reliance on bread & potatoes so perhaps cutting these out for a couple of meals a day is a good idea.

You are correct about the vegetables in the Japanese diet. I saw this same question asked somewhere the other day and it is indeed due to the high numbers of fish and veg that they consume - this acts to counter the rice intake. Also white rice is also the least harmful of the grains as they contain fewer lectins and anti-nutrients and such things. In terms of grains, the more and more I read on the subject the more and more harmful they appear to be, though it seems they affect some people more than others. Personally, I am not missing them on account of the wide array of fruit and veg I’m having - they are more nutritious anyway.

Edit: oh in terms of 'Western style' diet, I read/saw the other day that most/many(?) Americans (the books authors are American) can get as much as 70% of their daily intake from grains, in particular flour. You can see why a 70% daily intake of flour (bread, pizza, bagels, donuts etc) is absolutely no match for the equivalent intake of fruit and veg. Funny, when I told my Dad that I was not eating bread or any grains, he looked at me in panic and said 'but...but, you can't go without bread...you'll die!' It is funny how our daily habits get so easily ingrained (no pun intended).

Another video that might be of interest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PpuIKTg6QE&feature=bf_prev&list=SP3E243E4B1BEFB853
Robb wolf who knows his stuff.

[Gladys]

High protein diets & kidneys aren't a great match ... there are some suggestions that high protein diets can accelerate bone loss...

My dead diet hero, Nathan Pritikin, even in 1980, was preaching against higher protein diets - based on published research. But you do need sufficient protein from a variety of sources. And I much agree with your remarks on the Japanese diet.

{I loved Middlemarch. And The Mill on the Floss, in spite of those who mock the curious ending.}

[LitNetIsGreat]

Just a quick update and a slight correction. I'm still going strong with this after about five weeks now. I've still got lots more energy than I used to have (although I'm getting used to this as 'normal'). I never feel bloated, gassy after a meal or in the mornings, as I sometimes did. I am looking lean, especially in the face. I have not lost any weight this week, instead I have maintained at 11 stone (154 pounds) which is roundabout ideal anyway. (Though I would like to make my belly completely iron flat, with time...) I've started to add in a little strength training. I need to do this to replace the lost opportunities of tennis and biking, though I did manage to fit two tennis sessions in this week as the weather was kind. I'm also sleeping much better, which has the obvious positive knocking-on effect the following day. Oh the press-up count is up from 9 to 50 now, that's 50 in about one minute.

I have not consumed any bread at all or grains of any sort in five weeks, minus a tiny sliver of cake someone offered me and one biscuit. All other cakes/biscuits offered to me I politely decline. I have had two glasses of wine - which did not sit well and the odd pint of cider here and there, but largely I have avoided all of that stuff in its entirety. This is not been as hard as I thought because can see and feel the positive results. I should say that I'm eating about 95% paleo minimum.

The correction I'm adding is just to mention that my fruit consumption, based upon that one day listed above is apparently wayy to high. There's too much of it. This pushes out the carb/protein balance. Instead it is recommended to cut out a lot of that fruit and to swap it with eggs/fish or another protein source or veg instead.

[Gladys]

The correction I'm adding is just to mention that my fruit consumption, based upon that one day listed above is apparently wayy to high.

Research evidence, over the past two decades, supporting intake of several pieces of fresh, whole fruit daily is considerable. And I can't recall contrary research findings.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Research evidence, over the past two decades, supporting intake of several pieces of fresh, whole fruit daily is considerable. And I can't recall contrary research findings.

No I don't think there is anything 'wrong' with it as such, just that lots of fruit would raise the carb level of the diet which might be counter-productive if one of the main goals is losing weight. For this adding in a little more protein and less fruit would be a little better.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Just a very quick update on this in case anybody was interested.

I am still very much eating 'paleo.' (I have virtually dropped the name 'paleo' in general conversation unless pressed, and instead say 'low carb' as I generally get less grief.) I have been following this now strictly for two months plus, getting into the third month and I am not likely to go back on it - why the hell would I on account of all the positives? They are all the same - my energy levels are through the roof and constant throughout the day, looking and feeling fitter, leaner, sleeping better, stronger, more mentally focused, etc, etc. I have lost more weight. The last time I updated I was 11 stone and thought I would maintain at that but I am now 10st 7lb (147 lbs, 5ft 11in). One or two people are saying that I am looking too thin now but I try to tell them that I am losing body fat but working on gaining muscle - besides I am not underweight. Yes I am finding that I have to constantly 'defend' the way I am eating, you know in the main meat/fish, fresh fruit and veg, some nuts - really out there stuff! I occasionally have dark chocolate, coffee, red wine and custard in moderation too. This are paleo grey areas in moderation anyway. I have not had pizza or bread or any grains/flour/pasta (the really bad stuff) aside from about two biscuits which were thrust at me, in two months+ and I have not missed it either.

A very slight variation on paleo is the primal diet as detailed by Mark Sisson:


http://www.marksdailyapple.com/#axzz2Apc8uFgG

This is virtually paleo with greater tolerance towards dairy. I would recommend his book and website/blog for further information if you are interested. Mark also at length about exercise in the spirit of primal living. His website includes a free ebook on fitness. In a sentence it involves lots of low level activity, some brief intense weight sessions and some sprints once a week/every ten days and not over-training.

[billl]

A very slight variation on paleo is the primal diet as detailed by Mark Sisson:


http://www.marksdailyapple.com/#axzz2Apc8uFgG

This is virtually paleo with greater tolerance towards dairy. I would recommend his book and website/blog for further information if you are interested. Mark also at length about exercise in the spirit of primal living. His website includes a free ebook on fitness. In a sentence it involves lots of low level activity, some brief intense weight sessions and some sprints once a week/every ten days and not over-training.

Nice to see the thread pop back, I thought you had maybe reverted to caveman entertainments or something. I'm loving that link, I think the other dude I mentioned earlier (who I read talking about sprints and so on in an article a while back) maybe got his ideas from this guy in the link up there, or maybe they both got it from some other guy or whatever. Anyhow, I love the link because (and I know this isn't an awesome reason) it's affirming I guess, basically--there's some new stuff there for me, but a lot of it is just stuff I've been doing. I ended up looking at things in that basic way due to things I'd read and how certain things worked out for me in practice. I can't say enough about the sprinting--it's absolutely bewildering for me to casually monitor what's going on within a certain day (from one sprint to the next) as well as during the course of a week (maybe fewer or maybe more sprints than the norm for me one day, or during a week, etc.). I'm sort of naturally at a certain point with it, but my fitness level can get really elastic in either direction (up or down). The good thing is that recovery from a lapse or surging beyond the norm are both really easy now.

Anyhow, on top of the sprinting, another key ingredient of his workout plan is lifting heavy things--and I LOVE lifting things, it used to be my job! Always blew my mind when kids would come in to work and not want to lug boxes around, dragging themselves reluctantly around and groaning, and then rush off to the gym to build muscle mass afterwards, jesus. Me, I'll take any excuse to move something heavy--I'm often scrambling to take care of something before an assistant or some sensible mechanical aid can arrive. And through the repetition from dealing with awkward items I learned to do it safely (a lot of people get way too paranoid about their backs--but a lot of other people get reckless about them too, especially when they have my sort of enthusiasm for lifting things).

I guess the exercise ingredient I'm missing is the 'long walks' type of stuff--I used to get a lot more of that (I used to go on exactly the sort of hikes he's recommending every weekend). Actually, when I look at the modest levels he's recommending, I probably do make the cut, or come close--but I know my body used to really benefit from once-a-week hikes that were a lot longer and more difficult than any walking I'm doing nowadays.

And then the food... I'm not really looking at that angle now, so I didn't view those parts of the site too closely (low-carb, basically, I noticed, of course) but I'm glad to hear about the dairy products because I eat so much cheese. I don't eat meat/fish, so for me it's tons of cheese (peanuts/almonds/etc. too). I liked the prominently displayed bell peppers as well! I having some chip-sized pieces of the raw peppers right now...

[LitNetIsGreat]

Hi Bill, I'm glad you enjoyed the link. It's good to note that you were already covering most of his fitness recommendations and I remember now you mentioned sprinting before. He talks about how sprinting improves both aerobic and anaerobic fitness at the same time. It's also a case of training less for more. 20 minutes doing sprints (6-8 short sprints with rests between, and warm-ups) instead of what he calls 'chronic cardio' training excessively. He used to be a marathon and ironman runner in his youth, training 20+ hours a week. He now does 4-5 hours max (including lots of low level stuff, walking for example) and is in the shape of his life at 58 or whatever age he is now. So he's as critical of over-training as he is a sedentary lifestyle. He also stresses that you should be in-tune with your body and not to follow a strict programme - his once sprinting, twice lifting heavy things and lots of lower level walking/cycling, is really just a general guide you should follow your own energy levels which makes perfect sense to me as well.

In terms of diet, yes that's the bigger picture. He puts diet as high as 80% of fitness and the other 20% made up of correct exercise and a little for genetics. Having been going on the forums there and in other paleo one's (Robb Wolf's) paleo/primal is very much an individual interpretation around things like dairy and differences in carb vs fat in-take levels. It is about what is right for you and what your goals are obviously. Naturally someone who is 100lb over-weight will have differences from someone trying to build muscle and put on weight. The core of it is still very much the same though and there is no grey area regarding grains, in particular wheat, which Mark Sisson puts into the same category as tobacco! Sisson is also not so critical as Cordain in terms of legumes as well, I think he regards these as moderation foods. If you don't eat meat then the substitution to eggs and cheese would work in terms of primal. As I say the big one is the elimination of all grains. I've done so much reading on it that my head is almost at spin with it sometimes but I have found what works for me within the paleo/primal set-up and I'm more than happy with that.

Going back to sprints for a second and running. I'm trying to build up to runs as this is something I want to do. It's something I can do over the autumn/winter especially in place of tennis and cycling at least - though I managed a tennis session the other day as well. I have done a couple of sprint sessions and short runs - it's easy as I can take the kids to the park and do a few sprints as they are playing or I can race them while they are on the bike. I'm also looking into building some longer runs as well. There are many 10k races around that I might be interested in getting into. There are a few family members and friends who run 10k, so it would be interesting to see I could keep up now. As a teen at school I was hopeless. I always only just managed to finish in front of the asthmatic kid who was puking his guts up in a bush! I also used to get the stitch after about 200 metres as well. I am obviously much better than that now, but being able to do an occasional decent 10k time would be good and would help reverse a lot of my embarrassing past.

Anyway, good stuff. I would recommend Sission's book which I'm reading now but there is a load of info on his site for free if you look around.

[billl]

I guess I'll have to look around the site at least for more of what he has to say about wheat then. If I can get really scared, or intrigued by possibility, maybe I'll make a move. For now, I'll just keep with trying not to be stupid about it. I'm at least familiar with the difference between stupid and 'not as stupid' with this, I think. Like, I'm aware enough that it won't be a bagel in the AM, bread for lunch, and a giant plate of pasta for dinner. But I do like a somewhat large plate of pasta once or twice a month, and find "the sandwich" to be a really convenient delivery device for other food (and no dishes!)--I could cut more of that stuff out, but don't have the inspiration just yet.

Sounds like it could be fun/rewarding to work on the 10K thing, and it'd be interesting to keep an eye on what sort of training is most effective. Of course, it isn't as simple as that--there seem to be stages of development, and gains can vary on account of where the body is in the process of reacting to the work. I'm not a scientist, but I do know that any one form of training can suddenly produce results that are out of line with earlier sessions--this is what I've noticed with the sprinting recently, sprints are a nice little lab for this (lab! ..not a scientist of exercise, though!). Anyhow, with that in mind, I do get the impression that you'll have an interesting time applying some of these ideas you've been researching, as you apply yourself to the project. I'm not hungry for long distance myself, but I do wonder how long I might be able to extend a pseudo-sprint intensity sometimes. Like, it might be interesting to focus on a half-mile or mile, if I had a regular convenient place and time for it--but right now, I could honestly do a bit more just with the sprints (and those occasional feats of strength!).

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well I think you are spot on the money with the sprints, according to stuff I've been reading anyway, I'm far from an expert on it. Mark says regarding 10k that if you follow the fitness blueprint you should be more than fit enough to do the occasional 10k to a decent standard anyway. I think that is the beauty with sprints as it improves your aerobic capacity as well. Personally, I intend to stick to the blueprint as close as I can, doing a bit less if I manage to get out on the bike, or more likely, play tennis and slotting in occasional slightly longer runs. I'm thinking for example of doing 2 mile runs once a week on top of the sprints and lifting, so as not to do too much. And then perhaps do one 10k per month. I've not really decided about that, I'm just going along with it bit by bit and see what happens. It's just that all the races that are around seem to be 10k. I think I would be suited to shorter distances, I don't really know though to be honest. I do have bags of energy so if I've not done anything much for couple of days, usually on account of the weather, I naturally have the urge to run or to smash balls around a court!

[billl]

I learned something interesting a few months ago in connection to a discussion of athletes using performance enhancing drugs. Someone was asking whether an athlete who stopped using the drugs (e.g. anabolic steroids or whatever) would continue to benefit from them after stopping. The answer was Yes, but not in the most direct way. What happens is whether an athlete is using performance enhancing drugs or not, any gains they make and sustain for a period of time will tend to become a sort of baseline. Keeping at that level, or returning to it after an injury, becomes easier than initially attaining it. For a very basic example, an athlete who severely tears a muscle and can't exercise it for a couple months will return to training with some atrophy, but will return to normal strength much more quickly than a similar sized person who had only just begun training for that sort of strength.

Anyhow, that's a long way of leading into what I think might be interesting about your 10K plan: You'd obviously would want to try running that distance at least once before joining an actual race, and maybe practicing once a month would be a good way to do it. After actually racing once, it might be interesting to see how effectively sprints or whatever else you do regularly can keep you prepared for a 10K. Like, if you could do 1 or 2 races per year while doing just 1 or 2 practice races (or eventually even none?) during the year, then what this Mark guy is saying would appear to be right.

You're right, though, as far as joining races, 10K seems to be the overwhelming format. I've heard of a 5K before, but I think I only heard of that once ever, I forget where it was. I wonder if there could ever be a shift towards shorter races? One problem is that a one or two mile run is maybe not so good for a large group of people--some might just be getting past the start as others are finishing!

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes it would be interesting to see if that works. The alternative of running 3 or 4 10k runs a week (like a friend of mine) is just not attractive to me and is probably pushing towards 'chronic cardio' as Mark terms it - especially on top of the weights and sprints and tennis/cycling/walking. I also don't want to lose muscle mass and too much cardio will do this. Sprinting will also build muscle mass - you just have to look at the bodies of sprinters to see the truth there! Plus, why run for an hour when I can get the same results in 20 minutes?

I have a base level fitness with my cycling and tennis but I am virtually starting from scratch with the runs so I don't expect immediate results. So yes overall Mark's plan might be the best option for me, I'm going to give it a good go anyway, six months or a year and see how things come along. I'm already in the physical peak of my life so I am happy either way. (Though true there wasn't much to beat...) No one expects me to hit a good time anyway but I may just surprise them, you never know.

I had a thought about the fitness plan and occasional 10k runs, an analogy, and maybe you could compare it to the way they train horses for the Grand National? The Grand National is four and a half mile endurance test but they say the best horses for the event are two mile specialists. One of the winners the other year never even ran above two miles in his career and yet went on to win in style. A silly analogy perhaps but I think it is the same principle at play.

In terms of diet though, I hope Mark is correct in regards to his 80% of fitness because I'm totally confident that I'm eating a optimal diet here. In terms of energy levels alone I have gone from a fluctuating 4-7 (out of 10) throughout the day/week, to a constant 8 with touches of 9, so I think this can only give me an edge and confidence to go forward.

As I'm off work at the moment, tomorrow I plan to go for a two mile run in the morning and maybe some sprints ir tennis in the afternoon. I've never even ran a constant two mile before - I've cycled 50, 60 and 70 but never ran apart from the sprints, a couple of one milers and one four and half mile run/walk. So it will be interesting to see how I feel after a steady/brisk two miler.

Edit: oh you have a point about the format of the 10k. There are also many charity 10ks and a much shorter distance just would not work obviously. My brother finished 130th, or something like that, out of 7000 people last year with just one training session as preparation! (He is ex-army so maybe that would account for some of that but still impressive. Imagine what he could have done if he had stopped drinking and smoking!)

[LitNetIsGreat]

Maybe hints that the mainstream media are finally beginning to catch up with the common sense of 'Paleo' as featured in the news today?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2946617/Butter-ISN-T-bad-Major-study-says-80s-advice-dairy-fats-flawed.html

No **** Sherlock.

[Gladys]

The issue seems to revolve around what replaces saturated fats removed from the diet. For instance, increasing refined foods including sugars ain't good.

I heard recently that the combination of high saturated fats and high sugars is particularly bad.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes, high fat and high carbs together is a total recipe for disaster.

The thing with the Paleo diet is the name. If you called it, I don’t know, ‘the All-Natural Diet’ and advised people to try and eat natural food, food not ‘invented’ before 1960 you wouldn't get so much resistance.

Meanwhile, the media machine selling ‘healthy low fat foods’ is slowly having to admit that all that natural stuff people have been eating for thousands and thousands of years is actually not that bad for you...

[Gladys]

So few processed foods are commendable. Considering a digestive condition that runs in my family, I was shocked to read last month that common emulsifiers, introduced several decades ago, induce metabolic diseases in mice.

So much for cottage cheese. :frown5:

[Iain Sparrow]

So few processed foods are commendable. Considering a digestive condition that runs in my family, I was shocked to read last month that common emulsifiers, introduced several decades ago, induce metabolic diseases in mice.

So much for cottage cheese. :frown5:

Humans are far more nutritionally flexible/tolerant than are mice, especially the mice that are typically used in research studies. Processed foods won't kill you, however not exercising on a daily basis will. Remember, not only did our ancient ancestors eat natural foods, they had to hunt and gather those foods. Which is great exercise.:)

[Gladys]

Humans are far more nutritionally flexible/tolerant than are mice, especially the mice that are typically used in research studies. Processed foods won't kill you, however not exercising on a daily basis will.

I often wondered how applicable mice studies have been to human health, an issue never raised.

That processed foods won't kill you is patently false. For instance, consider the millions who die or are disabled from stroke through the salt in processed foods. The full story on the health effects of processed foods is millennia away, at least. In the meantime, I think more caution is warranted.

Not exercising, it now seems, is as life threatening as smoking - and more life threatening than typical consumption of processed foods.

[Iain Sparrow]

I often wondered how applicable mice studies have been to human health, an issue never raised.

That processed foods won't kill you is patently false. For instance, consider the millions who die or are disabled from stroke through the salt in processed foods. The full story on the health effects of processed foods is millennia away, at least. In the meantime, I think more caution is warranted.

Not exercising, it now seems, is as life threatening as smoking - and more life threatening than typical consumption of processed foods.

I completely agree.
Lab mice have been taken out of the evolutionary process, and aren't the best yardstick to base much of anything on. Rats, field mice and such can eat just about anything and survive just fine. Likewise they've built up tolerances for manmade pollutants, as well as poisonous animals that prey on them.
However, as you mention increased salt intake... that has indeed been linked to an entire host of health problems, same with "bad fat", and consuming too much sugar.
Best to just eat sensibly and exercise regularly.

[Calidore]

Best to just eat sensibly and exercise regularly.

Also, eat regularly and exercise sensibly.

[Gladys]

I heard a criticism of the Paleolithic Diet on ABC RN's The Science Show yesterday. If you wish to eat generous serves of red meat - be it beef, pork or lamb - make sure it's not from farmed animals. And do not eat processed meat, at all.


reduced-red-meat-consumption-aids-health-and-the-environment (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/reduced-red-meat-consumption-aids-health-and-the-environment/6286218)

[LitNetIsGreat]

I heard a criticism of the Paleolithic Diet on ABC RN's The Science Show yesterday. If you wish to eat generous serves of red meat - be it beef, pork or lamb - make sure it's not from farmed animals. And do not eat processed meat, at all.


reduced-red-meat-consumption-aids-health-and-the-environment (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/reduced-red-meat-consumption-aids-health-and-the-environment/6286218)

Oh yes naturally processed meats are not good and should be avoided completely, ideally, that's explained in any 'paleo' literature.

In terms of farmed meat or red meat it depends on the source. If they are fed on grains and pumped with hormones then clearly that is not as good as cattle that's allowed to lead and eat a natural diet, it's just common sense at the end of the day.

I was in a pub today and they had 'skinny burgers' on the menu - that is burgers and salad without the bun or fries. There were the same option for fishcakes - salmon fishcakes on a bed of salad. Well this is a 'paleo' option without using the term because it is becoming increasingly accepted that low carb meals are the way forward (or are the way 'backwards'!)

The fact that the 'Paleo Diet' is receiving more and more air time recently only shows that it is becoming more accepted, even if it is still very mis-understood.