View Single Post
Old 06-19-2012, 12:16 PM   #18 (permalink)
FitDay Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 443

I had to shorten some of the quotes because I went over the character limit.

But, it is much easier to eat less when you aren't hungry all the time.
For most people, eating more protein helps. I can see that. It's just I see so much of the time when I lurk paleo boards that people seem to think that calories in/calories out doesn't matter at all.

1) Taubes' downfall is that he lays out this beautiful theory but no explanation of how to actually implement it.
I'm curious as to how you implement it without excessive meat and without excessive legumes. Because you've got to get your protein from somewhere and if you're not overconsuming meat and eggs to get into a ketogenic state and you're staying away from tofu and beans (beans are about half protein/half carb if I recall correctly), then how are you getting enough protein to go low carb?

2) Unless you have familial hypercholesterolemia, eating cholesterol won't raise your blood cholesterol.
I agree with this actually. It also matches the research I've done.

Total blood cholesterol comes from both dietary and endogenous sources.
The only ones I've ever seen say that saturated fat doesn't cause a rise in cholesterol are paleos. I don't think a moderate amount of it is harmful but if you eat a lot of saturated fat by consuming a lot of meat then I do think it will cause heart disease.

3) High cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease. It might be a marker for inflammation and vessel damage.
You know what I've heard is a great anti-inflammatory food? Oatmeal. Also almonds and tuna, which are probably paleo, but I've never seen any evidence that oatmeal causes inflammation and I see it recommended on lists of anti-inflammatory foods. You know red meat (a paleo favorite) also causes inflammation. And vegetarians often say "why eat meat when you can get the same nutrition from other sources"? I'm not a vegetarian but they use the same argument you do for avoiding many of their favorite foods. My question is to counter all that, why NOT eat whatever foods are nutritious and eat a variety of them so that no one food has enough of a bad effect on you?

The modern approach scraps all of that and builds something from scratch, then claims that paleo is the approach that makes no sense.
Well my point is modern paleos are not really eating and living the same way real paleos did, and if modern ones did, then they'd probably live about as long as the real ones did.

Slightly overweight people are actually the ones that live the longest in our society. Yet they're in the group that's maligned.
It's wrong for people to hate people for being overweight. What's scary is that in a few thousand years society went from valuing someone having a little extra fat as a survival tool and a signal that someone was reproductively healthy, to seeing even someone at a normal, healthy weight as being "too fat" and preferring the anorexic look.

I think that people tried to eat as many calories as they could, when they could. History has always been feast and famine, and when famine times came, those with more fat survived better, and so that's why a lot of us have a genetic tendency to be fat. Many of the people who didn't died and didn't leave any descendants.

In short, grains are a cheap source of calories, easily stored, good to survive on, but not to thrive on.
It benefited society by allowing people to settle, to create larger populations, to specialize into different crafts rather than having to spend so much time on survival activities, which eventually led to our modern tech.

Whole grains don't have anything that you can't get from other sources.
Neither does meat.

It's estimated that around 40% of the American population is gluten-sensitive (whether it's diagnosed or not), so there's no good reason to purposefully eat grains, whole or refined, if you can avoid them.
Considering for at least the last 10,000 years most people who had ancestors outside of Africa were eating bread, I'd say I'm fairly well adapted to grains. I think things like celiac and gluten sensitivity are rare because if for all that time people were eating bread those who couldn't tolerate it probably wouldn't have been as fertile.

If you went to someone in the Middle Ages and offered them a loaf of bread when they were hungry do you think, that it's even remotely possible that the person would say "Oh no thank you, bread makes me feel icky". Heck no! They'd eat it, and feel better afterward. I don't know what happened to people today. Why are people suddenly developing these strange reactions to things that have been safe for thousands of years? Why does someone today suddenly claim to be gluten intolerant when their great grandparents had bread at every meal and lived to a ripe old age? Could there be an environmental contaminant?

To the point about seeds, and also non-gluten grains, many paleo advocates have no problem with them.
I just don't see what's wrong with gluten when most people in most of the civilized world ate it for millenia and they weren't lying on the floor suffering from it. Something must be different about today's people for them to suddenly start having issues with it. If it made people sick it never would have gained so much popularity.

Legumes are another one of those foods where if you can get the nutrients somewhere else, why eat them?
They do have good nutrition in them and every type of food has some kind of chemical in them. The trick to that is eating a varied diet to balance it all out.

It's not terribly complicated. Get your vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, and fiber from leafy greens, fruits, nuts, and seeds. Get carbs, when you need them, from fruits, starchy root vegetables, honey, tree saps. Get protein and fat from meat, eggs, nuts and seeds.
What I take issue with is that I think a lot of people are not really eating a healthy diet when they go 'paleo' but are actually gorging on red meat. They say they're eating like cave people but they don't even define which cave people or what time period they're emulating.

Originally Posted by tandoorichicken View Post
Psychosomatic or not, IMHO it's not worth the shrink hours to correct a perceived gluten intolerance so it might be easier to just not eat gluten grains, since the nutrients are found elsewhere. (I'm not hating on psychiatrists, btw; I have psych friends).
I just think that if people survived on wheat as a staple food for so long and now suddenly in modern times people are having bad reactions to it something must have either changed about the wheat, or some other factor must be at play here, because it's only in the last few years I've seen an explosion of "gluten free" products in the stores and people saying they're gluten intolerant, etc.

Either people are are reacting in mass paranoia or something has changed over the last few years. Suddenly people are having trouble with wheat and peanuts when I never ever heard about this in the 80s and 90s. It's not that people didn't have allergies back then or celiac, but it wasn't something that was common enough to be in the public eye like this.

Now I can't even give out halloween candy to the neighborhood kids without one or more of them piping up that they're allergic to peanuts (which I highly doubt, but I'm not their doctor so I would never test it). Forgive me if I'm really skeptical about this stuff but it seems like rare conditions have now become really common.

It's the cumulative damage over the long term from three constituents I'm concerned about:
What about the antinutrients in cruciferous vegetables and squash? Almost every food has some kind of toxin or chemical that needs to be accounted for, red meat being no exception to that.

1) phytic acid,
2) lectins,
3) canavanine
Thanks for the info. I still have to wonder if these are any worse than any other run of the mill things found in foods that we eat all the time that our livers are more than equipped to detoxify. Can't the bad effects be mitigated by eating a varied diet?

Here's three things I'm not concerned about:

1) natural saturated and monounsaturated fat, and w-3
Most doctors will say to limit saturated fat. Are they really wrong?

2) protein:
3) getting enough glucose:
I don't worry about getting enough protein because it's in almost every food. Also I agree with you that we don't need a lot of glucose.

[quote[I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, I'm just a biochemistry nerd with time and a loud mouth. Don't take it personally [/QUOTE]

I'm definitely not. Don't worry. I think this is interesting.

I think the main part I agree with you on is that less processed food is better, more natural food is better. I just don't like the way most paleos seem to approach this.
Rubystars is offline   Reply With Quote