ExRx.net

Obviously one of the key principles of Paleo diets in their many flavors is no grains. I like what J. Stanton does to make this easy to remember, he calls it all bird seed.

But you gotta wonder, how could the grains have been domesticated if we didn't know they were edible? And how would we know they were edible unless they were eaten on occasion? And if a paleo dieter allows for eating seasonal foods like nuts, berries, fruits, and so forth, why not a handful of foraged grain from time to time?

Or, why not a bowl of pasta once a week or so, and don't call it a cheat because it's not, its simply an infrequent "found" meal, as one might find a bee's nest and get an unexpected snack of honey.

Real paleo experience preferred on this, but unfounded conjecture and speculation from junk food couch jockeys also welcome.

I think the main riff-raff with paleo dudes and grains is that the grains we eat every day are so processed and UNnatural that they are really bad for you. Like junk food, like many candies. They are processed out of nutritional value. If it was straight from the field whole wheat grain there wouldn't be so much grinding gears. The white flour is the problem.

_________________
Prove the impossible!

all grains aren't created equal, with rice being on one end of the spectrum (the good end) and wheat being on the other (the bad end).

My theory on why wheat slipped in to the diet is that it's quite an insidious substance. You won't necessarily feel ill like you would if you ate something poisonous, so if you eat it and feel fine, you'll eat it again. It's the long term inflammation it causes that'll mess you up, but in most cases people don't even notice it happening.

http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionP ... 0Sword.pdf

That article covers the main points. Basically, grains are less nutritious than the alternatives, primarily, meat and vegetables. The situation is worse than, say, 100 years ago due to the highly refined nature of today's grains, but the adverse effects of grains go deeper than that. You may also want to read The Paleo Solution and Wheat Belly.

_________________
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

Yes, Loren is very cool, very well spoken.

If you can't read because you're cooking, have this open on a laptop or something to listen to:

Let me know if you want Wheat Belly, I haven't got round to reading it yet but have the ebook.

spaghetti trees?

there is some good things that have come from eating grains. We would not have internet if we stayed as hunter-gatherers.

Grains are not bad for you, it's alarmist bull$h1t.

Obviously the less processed the foods, the better - but I could eat a pound of candy a day, still get to below 12% bodyfat and have perfect health markers.

IIFYM (If it fits your macros) then the rest means very little.

Grains are not bad for you, it's alarmist bull$h1t.

Obviously the less processed the foods, the better - but I could eat a pound of candy a day, still get to below 12% bodyfat and have perfect health markers.

IIFYM (If it fits your macros)

that's been the prevailing wisdom on body building .com for as long as I've been reading it

I think in the context of weight loss, given the lower nutrional value of grains, it would often make sense to minimze them. Of course, if your macros and caloric intake are more liberal, there would be plenty of room for grains.

The debate of issues grains cause is over my head. Seems clear some folks don't do well with wheat for exmaple

While I agree blanket statements against grains might be harsh, when I try to put macros together and get micro nutrients w/o depending too much on powders and pills, it's much easier to do it at a defict if we throw the buns away and forget about the cheerios, etc.

People will constantly claim they've got 'gluten intolerance' etc.

When in all reality, about 1% of the human population has Celiac Disease (gluten tears up their intestines) and only about 5-7% are actually gluten intolerant.

That's the problem with people these days, they hear some people can't digest/handle certain foods and they automatically assume that's the reason they're fat or lazy or can't reach their goals - it *MUST* be because I've been eating bread or drinking milk or blah blah blah.

People don't reach their goals because they're lazy and lack the willpower to get there - it's that simple.

About 95% of the human population handles grain just fine, yet it seems like everyone and their mother is suddenly dying because of the grain they eat.

Such bull$h1t.

I for one suggest you do start posting more again. I know it can be frsutrating but alternative views are important, especially for newbs who may heare one side disproportionally. I think much of Stu, but we can get too monolithic in these smaller forums

yeah, we like to assign labels, like "my kid has ADD". It's easier than actually parenting.

Not everyone can eat a pound of candy loose weight, with one caveat. If you starve the people to the point where it doesn't matter if they have no energy, and it's well below anything the body can compensate for by adjusting metabolism, then that works for everyone; but only in that extreme circumstance.

People also make the assumption that we know the cause/effect relationship with this. We don't. There is no evidence.

Eating a lot of sugar is kind of like smoking. It may cause severe health problems in a relatively short period of time, or you may die at 105 without a hint of a problem.
You also can't confuse the amount of food with the healthiness of it.

Grains of course aren't anywhere near as bad as sugar, but it does look like they cause some inflammation. That can be bad in higher quantities, but in smaller quantities it would have very little affect. If grains were less refined as they used to be, they would contain so much fiber you simply couldn't eat too much of it. It's kind of like fruit that way, where you simply can't eat enough of it for the sugar to be a problem. Not to mention you also have a couple very healthy options for starchy carbs when you need that. Yams and brown rice are pretty healthy, and I think turnips are too. If grains weren't being represented as this super-healthy thing that should be the bulk of your diet, they probably wouldn't be a problem. It's just that a large percentage of the recommended diet is that.

People probably feel better not eating as much grain and mistakenly think they are gluten intolerant, but it's just a faulty assumption as only a very small percentage of the population are.



Now this I think is just silly. It's a blanket statement, absolutist for one thing, but it's also demonstrably false. It's not very controversial that genetics is the biggest factor in bodybuilding. There is also the very different genes that are active in different people predisposing them to having this problem or that problem. Not every natural bodybuilder looks like Steve Reeves, and not every steroid user can compete in the Olympia contest. Hard work will only get you so far.

Now I certainly won't dispute that most overweight people I encounter don't have a willpower problem, because they most certainly do. I can tell someone how to lose weight, get them losing weight, but they can't stick to it. They know I'm right, they've tried it and seen that it works just like I said. They still can't do it. I'm just saying that isn't the case for everyone.

There are actually brain scans proving ADD, and criteria for having the different types of it. I could also say that blaming parents is a lot easier than the medical research that went into diagnosing and treating such problems. It's even a few orders of magnitude easier then learning a little about the subject.

I don't know about problem X, therefore it's made up and it's all those people's fault. That's the basic generic message I'm seeing there....that and "get off my lawn, you little bastards".