ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:19 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Paleo - Good or bad?
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 7:19 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:21 pm
Posts: 40
There are a lot of studies showing the benefits of eating a plant-based diet that include grains. Check out nutritionfacts.org

"Paleo" is largely untested theory. Whether it is even accurately "paleo" is debatable since more research is coming out showing that our ancestors included wild grains in their diets. And, diets were different in various parts of the world at various different times.

You could eat a healthy grain free diet if you really think grains are bad. You could eat small amounts of lean white meat, lots of vegetables and sweet potatoes. You might start to ask yourself why though as you live on salad, meat, and sweet potatoes. Is a bowel of oatmeal with fruit and nuts for breakfast really bad for you?

What I don't like about Paleo most though is that there is often a disconnect between the paleo recommendations and paleo in practice. People often use it as an excuse to eat fatty barbeque and other bad, fatty foods--essentially Adkins revisisted. When it "works" for weight loss it's usually because eating enough calories on a meat and vegetable (usually salad) diet is hard and incovenient--they are essentially living in a calorie deficit while they're eating that way--which probably isn't for long since most people grow tired of eating that way. Over time they may start eating jars of almond butter or some other low carb "Paleo" food to make up the calories--because they're starving. All the while people eating this way are hungry and low energy. (and I doubt that our paleo era ancestors ate the equivalent of jars of almond butter, avocados year round, and ranch dressing).

Also, if you want anecdotal evidence to the contrary of paleo's theory look at all the countries and areas where people eat low fat, low meat, high-carb, grain based diets that are low in processed foods (e.g. Japan, parts of China, parts of Europe, parts of Africa, parts of South America)--they are thin and have the lowest rates of heart disease, stroke, cancer, and diabetes. They're the healthiest people on Earth.

Speaking of paleo's theory. It is inconsistent that paleo diet's theory is that phytic acid in grains is so bad that they should be avoided, but meat that causes uric acid production in the body that leads to inflammation and arthritis is ok. Also, meat is linked to heart disease and cancer, but the phytic acid in grains is so bad that these high fiber, high energy foods should be avoided at all costs? Really, paleo diet's reasoning supports a raw vegan diet, not a paleo diet. A raw vegan diet avoids all the problems with acid--from meat and grains--problem solved.

What you will find with a whole food, low fat, plant based diet is that it is a diet of energy and abundance. It gives you glycogen for your muscles to workout and plenty of glucose for your brain to function. It leaves you full and satisfied.

Best of luck.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Paleo - Good or bad?
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 5:02 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6416
Location: Halifax, NS
Drake, I first eliminated grains and sugar from my diet over 10 years ago, before hearing about Paleo. I learned about this from Mercola's "No Grain Diet". Since then I've learned that I can add in reasonable amounts of grains and dairy. Meat never posed any problems for me.

The flavour of paleo that I usually promote is different than the popular public perception of paleo. Paleo has become a caricature of the original concept.

A long as your moving towards a healthier lifestyle than you were following, you're doing it right.

Any healthy diet will involve more vegetables and less processed foods. Successful plant based or meat based diets all include this feature.

_________________
Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Paleo - Good or bad?
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 1:57 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
First issue, stop with the thread necromancy. Rarely is it acceptable to do that. I'm far more lenient about that than folks on other forums. But it's still not good form.

Second issue is that you are making a lot of claims, stated as if they are axioms, with no evidence whatsoever.

Thirdly, the site you are referencing is known for bias and lack of proper evidence. It is a site run by a vegan, where studies are misrepresented, and compiled in a sort of kettle logic in order to appear to support the presupposed conclusion. Proper science is supposed to be done in the reverse of that. One tests hypotheses with proper controls and variables, and then the results are examined to come up with a conclusion. But the site you reference uses this reverse order as is common with pseudoscience, where they are essentially begging the question. It is at the very least presupposition.

Part B of this third item would simply be "why?" Why is fat bad? Why is Atkins bad? In what way are these things bad? How do you know this?

The final thing is that "paleo" is very ambiguous. People saying the things you are saying seem to thrive on this ambiguity as it facilitates a great deal of conflation, which allows you to better make your points, albeit with a sort of fallacious "logic".

There is the more typical kind of paleo, which people generally do, where they eat mostly just meat, veggies, fruit, nuts, and that sort of thing. Then you have the fringe side of it, where it is rather cult-like, and full of just as many bizarre and unfounded beliefs as the site you referenced. You need to be specific. Taking advantage of ambiguity to further your agenda is an obvious ploy and does nothing but hurt your credibility.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Paleo - Good or bad?
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 7:34 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:21 pm
Posts: 40
Your statements about nutritionfacts.org are wrong. It is a compilation of scientific studies and research. The medical doctor who runs it quotes scientific studies, he doesn't perform the studies. I won't get any more specific than to point to the body of evidence on that website. There are other resources, of course. But, this one alone is enough to blow up Paleo theory and practice. If you refute the health benefits of a whole food plant based diet, even those that include grains, then that is so contrary to a mountain of scientific studies going back from today to the 1930s that you join the ranks of counterculture pseudo-dietitians that have zero scientific credibility.

It is sad that unsubstantiated and dangerous nutrition advice or practice is alluring to so many people. I agree that a grain free lifestyle CAN be healthy. It's not necessary, but can be healthy if the grain free diet is whole food and plant based.

My post is accurate and I'm sorry that it offends people of the low-carb mindset. I say low-carb, because that's what "Paleo" really is. It's just another low-carb fad diet. If you don't believe me, then try telling a paleo guru that you're going to start eating 5-8 sweet potatoes a day (since they are "Paleo") and see what your guru says. The only reason people lose weight on these diets is that they are starving. If you eat four eggs for breakfast, a salad with chicken strips for lunch and stir fried vegetables and fish for dinner, then you're basically starving. That's probably like 1,000 or fewer calories. It's simply not enough food. It's not sustainable. People go into ketosis, they feel horrible, they have no energy, their muscles go flat, they have headaches and brain fog. You can't refute that.

Then there are those who eat enough calories--they live off of saturated fat--bacon, brisket, coconut butter, ranch dressing etc. If you don't understand why that's bad, then. again, you have no credibility. The correlation between fat intake, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer is well documented and studied--for decades. Do some reading of mainstream, peer reviewed, scientific studies. I say this out of concern for you and all those reading this who are trying to improve their health. I don't mean to offend you or anybody else who has bought into Paleo or any other low carb, meat based diet. The propaganda for these diets is strong and can seem convincing. Please do some reading and soul searching. You seem like a good guy who means well. You have the chance to help yourself and others. People are profiting off of these meat diets. They are selling sensationalism, cultism, counterculturism--and their books, seminars, and supplements. People are buying it--with their arteries.

Best of luck.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Paleo - Good or bad?
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 7:54 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm
Posts: 4424
paleo doesn't mean low carb. That's a common misconception.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Paleo - Good or bad?
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 1:34 am 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:40 pm
Posts: 1141
Location: Lapland, Finland
I won't dwell too deep into this book of bad arguments. You are making a lot of bold claims and assumptions of studies and "common day knowledge" that hold very little truth. I have just one thing to say.

Drake Van Steed wrote:
The correlation between fat intake, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer is well documented and studied--for decades. Do some reading of mainstream, peer reviewed, scientific studies. I say this out of concern for you and all those reading this who are trying to improve their health.

Oh oh! I got this!

How about these "mainstream, scientific studies"? Have you read any recently?

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early ... 5.abstract
"A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD"

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... eid=202339
"Over a mean of 8.1 years, a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD in postmenopausal women and achieved only modest effects on CVD risk factors,"

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707
"In this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease."

I like to include the last study as well, because you probably claim saturated fats are eeevil.

_________________
Physical Preparedness Coach
Co-Owner of UniFit Oy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Paleo - Good or bad?
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 9:53 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
Quote:
Your statements about nutritionfacts.org are wrong.


Baseless assertion.

Quote:
he doesn't perform the studies


I know that. I am referring to the way he compiles and misrepresents them. In addition some of those studies do not use proper methodology. Nutrition is a field of science rife with problems. The studies that are done particularly in the past would get you laughed out of any other field of science. If it deviates from the scientific method, it is not proper evidence. Many of those studies involve multiple variables which are not controlled, and the researcher picks the variable he wants regardless of it being only one of many changes. Then nutritionfacts posts it as if it is conclusive causative evidence, when it is not.

Quote:
But, this one alone is enough to blow up Paleo theory and practice


Baseless assertion and ambiguity. Define paleo.

Quote:
a whole food plant based diet


That can refer to a number of different diets. Some good, some not so good.

Quote:
contrary to a mountain of scientific studies going back from today to the 1930s


It's hard to pin down which studies with the vague diet type you mention. However, as it happens some studies in that time period were proper science and some were not. The Seven Countries study for example is notorious for cherry-picking, presupposition, and causation/correlation fallacy.

Quote:
that you join the ranks of counterculture pseudo-dietitians that have zero scientific credibility


Straw man and ad hominem.

Quote:
I agree that a grain free lifestyle CAN be healthy. It's not necessary, but can be healthy if the grain free diet is whole food and plant based


Most grain based food can't really be considered whole food at all. Furthermore you have given no evidence for these assertions.

Quote:
My post is accurate and I'm sorry that it offends people of the low-carb mindset.


No, your fallacy-filled nonsense and apparently credulous nature offend people with a philosophically and/or methodologically skeptical mindset.

Quote:
then try telling a paleo guru that you're going to start eating 5-8 sweet potatoes a day (since they are "Paleo") and see what your guru says


Depends on who. There is no consensus on yams. again you are using ambiguity for the sake of conflation.

Quote:
If you eat four eggs for breakfast, a salad with chicken strips for lunch and stir fried vegetables and fish for dinner, then you're basically starving. That's probably like 1,000 or fewer calories. It's simply not enough food. It's not sustainable.


Who says people eat like that? The only people that generally do that are pre-contest bodybuilders, and only for a couple weeks.

Quote:
People go into ketosis, they feel horrible, they have no energy, their muscles go flat, they have headaches and brain fog. You can't refute that.


I don't have to refute anything. You are making the claim and therefore have the burden of proof. If someone gets headaches and brain fog, they likely cut their carbs a little too low. Add a couple servings of veggies or a piece of fruit. Problem solved. Ketosis happens sometimes, but nothing wrong with that. Flat muscles are from glycogen depletion and resolves when the person goes to a maintenance diet.

Quote:
Then there are those who eat enough calories--they live off of saturated fat--bacon, brisket, coconut butter, ranch dressing etc. If you don't understand why that's bad, then. again, you have no credibility.


There is nothing bad about that, and you have provided no evidence showing that to be the case. My credibility has nothing to do with things you assert with no evidence. The problem is that you have been getting your information filtered and have not kept up with all the research debunking your assertions.

Quote:
The correlation between fat intake, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer is well documented and studied--for decades. Do some reading of mainstream, peer reviewed, scientific studies.


I have and the evidence indicates just the opposite. You don't know that because you get all your information from biased sources, and you likely do not understand when proper methodology was used and when it was not. Self reported studies with multiple variable differences are not proper evidence. Your ideas are based on those 100%. All the research with proper controls show the opposite.

Quote:
The propaganda for these diets is strong and can seem convincing.


Strong, yes. Convincing, no. Unless they have proper peer reviewed research of course. Unlike the things you find convincing.

Quote:
Please do some reading and soul searching.


LOL You are quite presumptuous.

Quote:
People are profiting off of these meat diets. They are selling sensationalism, cultism, counterculturism--and their books, seminars, and supplements.


That's quite a generalization. Some are and some aren't. How your broad-brushing, total certainty, lack of evidence, and filtered sources don't throw up red flags for you, really speaks to your level of indoctrination.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group