Just wondering, Mr. Tele, does the physical record that has survived to this time indicate anything in particular about the general health and well-being of the people of that era? Or is there just not enough concrete evidence to draw conclusions?
Just wondering, Mr. Tele, does the physical record that has survived to this time indicate anything in particular about the general health and well-being of the people of that era? Or is there just not enough concrete evidence to draw conclusions?
I don't need a historical record to confirm results (weren't you born in the Paleolithic era anyways? :fmicon:) It works for me. Since I have started eating "paleo," I have lost gross 40lbs, lowered chlosterol, leaned out substantially, sleep better, have more energy and do not have lingering stomach issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
But why? This gets to a basic thought I have about what I understand at least part of the argument for paleo to be. (And I admit I know very little about nutrition - much less than many posting in this thread ... including Spats. I'll also say that eating paleo sounds pretty good to me, from the perspective of what I find appealing to eat.) It's what I thought when reading the comment above regarding evolution of our diet, which is that, more importantly, we've evolved in all sorts of aspects. You appreciate living in a house and getting around in a car, I assume, rather than living as our ancestors did in those regards, but for some reason you assume our ancestors had it just right in terms of diet? I don't understand that. Maybe they did, but I'll believe that because our current understanding of nutrition suggests that is so, rather than just because it's "natural."Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
Paleo guys didn't have a cupboard full of crap to contend with. You think they would have stuck with their rotten meat if they had delicious snacks at their fingertips? Psh! I'll say this, if you have a wife and kids and can religiously stick with this thing, I commend you. Me, I'm not gonna give that fresh loaf of French bread the satisfaction of not being slathered in butter and immensely enjoyed. I don't claim it's good for me, but my weight is under control and life is too short not to eat pizza.
Rontele: I was't trying to make a point, I was just wonderig if there was any historical evidence either way. Certainly personal experience is a reasonable basis upon which to base decisions.
heh, "life is too short not to eat pizza" about sums up my position too.
There is a ton of evidence out there. Unfortunately, (i) I don't have time to read up on it and (ii) don't really care.Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
Is (i) and (ii) some lawyer speak for "read the fine print footnotes, but don't really bother because you wouldn't understand them anyway, just trust me on this?"
(i) means I don't have time to pleasure read scientific data on the lives and lifespans of paleolithic men; I leave that to others and read their deductions and make conclusions for myself; and (ii) plain meaning controls on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elkhound Odin
Fair enough, I just haven't really heard jack myself but I'm sure that's mainly because of (ii), above. I betcha Spats could've answered that question, though!
My diet follows the paleo program more or less (i eat a lot more veggies) but that doesn't stop my bullshit detector from going off full force after reading the page linked in the OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
I frequently don't eat breakfast or if I do then don't lunch. and have no urge to. I actually enjoy being mildly hungry or having an appetite for most of the day.
Ski lift serve (or tour) all day, work out with out bonking.
No paleo involved. Unless I work out hard I lose weight.
Remind me what benefits were there in adopting a quasi religious attitude against foods that I enjoy eating?
Oh yeah it's for the cAaaaaave meeeeen.
I'm with Ice.Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
You've been bamboozled by deliberate scientific fraud. There is no correlation between saturated fat intake and heart disease, and there never has been. Carb intake is what's linked to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. As I link repeatedly:Quote:
Originally Posted by surrender_monkey
Patty W Siri-Tarino, Qi Sun, Frank B Hu, and Ronald M Krauss. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr Jan 2010
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.27725v1
“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.”
And here’s the layman’s version, from Scientific American: “Carbs Against Cardio: More Evidence that Refined Carbohydrates, not Fats, Threaten the Heart“, Scientific American, May 2010
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...against-cardio
And here's a study showing that people who eat more saturated fat actually were healthier, more active, and lived longer! Yet since those results were not what the Framingham study was supposed to prove, the paper with these results was buried and never published.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/c...ngham-follies/
Saturated fat is the best energy source for your body. Think about it: the calories in the human diet consisted primarily of fat associated with red meat (which is roughly 1/2 saturated) for millions of years. And we only started dying of heart disease after the invention of chemically extracted seed oils and the trans fats formed by their partial hydrogenation.
If you want to learn more about how we got bamboozled into thinking otherwise by deliberate scientific fraud, you can watch this humorous and excellent presentation: Tom Naughton's "Big Fat Fiasco"
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exi7O1li_wA"]YouTube - Big Fat Fiasco pt. 1[/nomedia]
(note: linking it, not embedding, because it's a multi-parter)
As far as the "but they all died at 30" argument:Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gur...lan2007pdr.pdf
"The average modal age of adult death for hunter-gatherers is 72 with a range of 68-78 years. This range appears to be the closest functional equivalent of an "adaptive" human lifespan."
[...]
"Illnesses account for 70 percent, violence and accidents for 20 percent,
and degenerative diseases for 9 percent of all deaths in our sample."
[...]
"Post-reproductive longevity is a robust feature of hunter-gatherers and
of the life cycle of Homo sapiens. Survivorship to grandparental age is achieved
by over two-thirds of people who reach sexual maturity and can last an aver-
age of 20 years. "
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6hzaiioy9o...span+table.jpg
As far as comparing Paleolithic hunter-gatherers to the farmers that followed them, in every case the hunter-gatherers lived longer, were taller and stronger, had better teeth, and were in far better health.
"Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show that the average height of hunter-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a generous 5'9" for men, 5'5" for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height crashed, and by 3000 B.C. had reached a low of 5'3" for men, 5' for women. By classical times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still not regained the average height of their distant ancestors." [Note: article written in the 1980s. Since then, Greeks and Turks have managed to get slightly taller.]
"At Dickson Mounds ... Compared to the hunter-gatherers who preceded them, the farmers had a nearly fifty percent increase in enamel defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia (evidenced by a bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), a threefold rise in bone lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. "Life expectancy at birth in the preagricultural community was about twenty-six years," says Armelagos, "but in the postagricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive."
http://scr.bi/1643CM
(it's at scribd, but if I don't shorten it vBulletin 'helpfully' tries to embed it and fails)
And here's another long one about North America, if you're interested:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/l...ter-gatherers/
1. Life expectancies for both sexes at all ages were lower at Hardin Village than at Indian Knoll.
2. Infant mortality was higher at Hardin Village.
3. Iron-deficiency anemia of sufficient duration to cause bone changes was absent at Indian Knoll, but present at Hardin Village, where 50 percent of cases occurred in children under age five.
4. Growth arrest episodes at Indian Knoll were periodic and more often of short duration and were possibly due to food shortage in late winter; those at Hardin Village occurred randomly and were more often of long duration, probably indicative of disease as a causative agent.
5. More children suffered infections at Hardin Village than at Indian Knoll.
6. The syndrome of periosteal inflammation was more common at Hardin Village than at Indian Knoll.
7. Tooth decay was rampant at Hardin Village and led to early abscessing and tooth loss; decay was unusual at Indian Knoll and abscessing occurred later in life because of severe wear to the teeth. The differences in tooth wear and caries rate are very likely attributable to dietary differences between the two groups.
Overall, the agricultural Hardin Villagers were clearly less healthy than the Indian Knollers, who lived by hunting and gathering.
Fish oil supplements are extracted from fish using steam and big mechanical presses. (Typically from little fatty fish like menhaden, sardines, and anchovy.) I'm not sure how the vegan algae-source stuff is extracted.Quote:
Originally Posted by bagtagley
There's a guy who does that.Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxvszzgYRjU"]YouTube - Aajonus Vonderplanitz Piece[/nomedia]
Does Tim give a reference for that? I don't know one way or the other, and would be interested to see what he's basing that on.Quote:
Originally Posted by gameface
Note: If he also recommends a workout right after waking, that might be the reason.
I'm starting the last four weeks of an eight week paleo challenge and I'm committed to be strict with the finish. I still averaged about two cups of two percent milk a day for the first four weeks.
Honestly so far I haven't noticed any changes. I don't have any more energy, I haven't slept better and recovery feels about the same. I haven't noticed a change in strength or body comp so far either. I am open to the idea that maybe I'm just not that in tune with my body and maybe it's changed subtlety. I'm also holding out hope that the next four weeks will flip the switch and it will click. I did take pics and measurements before starting so we will see if there are any quantifiable results.
One thing I have a question about is the frequency of eating. My habits haven't changed in that regard and honestly I'm still hungry just as often. Today I woke up and had four ounces of steak with three whole eggs, two hours later I had an apple smeared with peanut butter and a large handfull of almonds. Just a minute ago I had an omelet with 4 eggs, mushrooms, spinach and turkey followed by a banana and a cup of blueberries. Am I eating too little at a time? Is there a specific reason that eating frequently is bad?
^^^My doc says the same thing about early protein. Something about the body thinking 'oh, cool, gonna have protein today' and then releasing fat stores.
i don't know shit about this stuff, however do believe spats on the benefits of nuking carbs.
Let's look at that study for a moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltMind
First, it's associational data from the Nurses' Health Study -- which is the one that told all women to take hormone replacement therapy because it decreased cancer risk by 40%, until an actual controlled study found that HRT caused more deaths from breast cancer.
Remember, as I said: associational studies don't tell you whether a food is healthy to eat, it tells you whether already-healthy people ate that food. As with the HRT example, any nurse taking HRT (which was very new at the time) was very health-conscious, and the healthy behaviors associated with that overwhelmed the actual effect of HRT causing more cancer.
Same with eating brown rice vs. white rice: almost no one eats brown rice voluntarily, because it's rarely served in restaurants. The only people eating brown rice are health freaks cooking it at home (vs. eating out), which fact by itself will correlate with substantially better health.
Associational studies are worthless in themselves as a positive predictor, and only point towards what should be done in a controlled study. I can design a study that shows owning Gore-Tex pants makes you half as likely to die from a heart attack -- but that's because the people buying them a) have lots of money and b) are exercising outdoors. Buying Gore-Tex will not magically make anyone healthier.
However, associational studies can do one thing, which is disprove causal relationships. If there is no correlation between the prevalence of two factors, it is unlikely that one is causing the other. Thus we see that, despite decades of flailing, no one has yet managed to associate saturated fat with increased risk of death -- which means that we can discard the hypothesis that saturated fat is bad for you, no matter what it might do to numbers on a chart.
Consumption doesn't occur in a vacuum. Any time we ask "Should I eat this?" we have to ask "And if not, what should I eat instead?"Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltMind
If the question is "Should I eat goldfish crackers, or brown rice?" brown rice clearly wins. I make this point in my essay: most studies compare "terrible" to "less bad". However, if the question is "Should I eat fatty meat, or brown rice?" fatty meat is superior in every possible nutritional measure.
Which brings me to the last issue with the Harvard study: for people who are consuming the government-recommended high-sugar ('high-carb') diet and are therefore borderline deficient in most nutrients, brown rice may actually be an improvement over whatever else they're eating. However, for anyone consuming a paleo diet, brown rice (or any rice) is a major nutritional downgrade. The only reason to consume it is as a source for quick energy via the glucose it contains, and the fact that brown rice has marginally more of certain nutrients is outweighed by the anti-nutrient content AFAIK.
Are you supplementing omega-3 at all? If you're not eating grass-fed and are eating lots of eggs and nut butters, you'll definitely need some. IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
Consider cutting down dramatically on the nut butters. They're huge omega-6 bombs, particularly peanut butter. (Whole almonds are fine in moderation, having a better PUFA profile.) Getting your n-3/n-6 ratio in line is a HUGE benefit, and to do that you need more red meat fat/fish fat and less other fat. That's what made the most difference to my attitude and health.
As far as food frequency, try doing some fasted workouts. Eat nothing upon waking, and right when you're starting to feel peaked, do a hard workout. The entire point to "paleo" is to force your body into a fat-burning state, and you can't do that if you're constantly snacking on fruit. I made a big breakthrough in this regard recently.
Hint: have a roast ready at all times to cut slices from. Big roasts (including pot roasts) are your key to paleo. Otherwise you're stuck eating things that aren't meat :D
Not a clinical study per se but his approach in his book is experimenting and explaining what has worked the best for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
(p.96) "Get at least 20 grams of protein per meal. This is absolutely the most critical at breakfast. Eating at least 40% of your breakfast calories as protein will decrease carb impulses and promote a negative fat balance."
This is one of the few places he doesn't get all sciencey about, and it seems counter-intuitive but I have been losing more fat weight with more morning protein. I was more questioning the use of whey as a supplement.
Here is a little clip from the Dr. Oz show (go to 2 minutes in) that he explains this a little more.
http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/four-...fect-body-pt-2
You could watch the whole segment if you want as it is only 15 minutes long and starts here if you're interested.
http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/four-...fect-body-pt-1
Now if you do decide to watch, please don't think his book is anything like this. Dr. Oz just took a few ideas of Tims that would he 'could get behind' but the book, even though doesn't coincide with your diet 100%, would really be an interesting read for you I think.
Just to be clear, brown rice has a lower glycemic index than white rice. Reason enough, along with the additional nutritional value to choose it over white rice. Contrary to what you wrote earlier, brown rice is not unhealthy even though eating a lot of it can lead to mineral deficiencies. Eating up to five servings per week showed positive health benefits in the study. The take away is that most carbohydrate intake should come from whole grains rather than refined grains, a conclusion borne out by many other studies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
While it is true that causation does not necessarily equal correlation the researchers at Harvard did attempt to statistically account for lifestyle differences, too. However imperfect that may be, the same can be said about some of the research you've posted in this thread.
That's where things get murky. What you've presented in this thread is at times more narrative than science. And while you are right about some things, a basic random fact check shows that you are factually wrong about other things, or in many cases ignoring contravening information like the potential health benefits of Phytic acid in brown rice in moderate amounts i.e. many compounds are beneficial at low dosages but unhealthy in high dosages.
Case in point, referring to the "government-recommended high-sugar ('high-carb') diet" is not a terribly accurate assessment of the government guidelines. Specifcally, look at their foods and food components to reduce and foods and nutrients to increase because they often recommend the opposite of your contention.
While I'm not a proponent of the governments guidelines (this is the first time I've ever looked at them, in fact) it amounts to some straightforward advice: Seek out calories from nutrient dense food. Eat more fruits and vegetables. Eat lean meat. Cut down on salt, sugar and saturated fats. Eat fish too. Drink water. Eat fewer calories. Move around.
Sure, it's easy to poke holes in some of their conclusions but on balance, it's some very good advice. Where you differ is in the ratios with the government recommending carb:45–65% protein:10–35% fat:20–35% but they do not recommend simple sugars and highly refined refined carbs.
get rid of the milk, it's not Paleo. This will work. You should see a laps in energy right about now. Stay strict and it will pass. Milk is a problem for what you are trying to accomplish.Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
Man up, black coffee.
The science of nutrition has lots of weaknesses. Grains are not necessary and have caused health problems for the last 10,000 years. Cut them out. Paleo is pseudo science, but at least they know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltMind
Then how is Rontele going to support his family?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
Cows milk is for cows.
Strict Paleo has done absolutely nothing for me in aspects I can measure (energy, strength, sleep, stress) when compared to my regular diet and going back to my old diet hasn't shown any changes either. I did lose a little weight but that is counter to my goals. That doesn't mean that other aspects of my health aren't improved but simply based on the measure of how I feel, I don't feel different. I would probably need my blood analyzed to truly see if there is a change.Quote:
Originally Posted by rather ripped
I believe that the people who notice the largest benefits from the Paleo diet are the ones who are most sensitive to the things that are eliminated. Of the group I have done it with only a few have really seen noticeable changes aside from weight loss.
It's definitely worth trying a Paleo challenge to find out for yourself but I don't think it is the universal solution it is claimed to be.
Did you go for a big tour yesterday? That could explain things a bit. Otherwise I have no idea. My breakfast was pretty similar (4 eggs, 2 strips bacon, 3 cups raw spinach) and I was just barely starting to get hungry at 1:30.Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
And grain vs. non-grain carb consumption, total fat intake, saturated fat intake, cholesterol intake, full-fat vs. low-fat dairy.... Carb balance is far from the only or even biggest difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltMind
Was all that gain bodyfat? Major caloric excesses will lead to weight gain no matter what you eat. Have you tracked your calories for each diet on fitday to confirm that you were eating similar calories? If that gain was mostly lean body mass I don't see a problem at all. Shit, I weigh 160 w/ <10% bodyfat and I'm 5-6. I'm well muscled but far from a shirt-busting meathead.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltMind
Unrelated to the quoted content above, I am becoming increasingly convinced that raw energy balance (calories in/calories out) is not the whole story of weight gain and loss. By total chance I happened to read Gary Taubes recent Readers Digest article recently. One item that really caught my eye: How many calories do you need to overeat by to gain 40 lbs in 20 years (i.e. how many, many people get fat)? 20 (no, I did not leave a zero off there). Good luck managing your daily energy balance with that kind of precision.
That's just going off the whole 1 lb = approx 3700 calories line?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
20 cal per day * 365 = about two pounds per year or 40 over 20 years.
No big tour, just a relaxed day at the resort since it was shitty. Almost more of a rest day. I track what I eat on fitday and honestly the calories aren't huge, usually around 3200 a day with generally about 50% coming from fat. I can't remember the last time I went five waking hours without eating. Maybe I need to do some intermittent fasting to normalize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
Yeah, I think the calories in vs. calories out approach is far from the whole story. There is a lot of energy (which you could measure in calories) leftover in poop. If I ate 5000 calories of corn I don't know the caloric value of what I crap out, but I bet it isn't zero. In many parts of the world they still burn cow/waterbuffalo/yak turds for heat - gotta be calories left in there. Then factor in nutrient uptake and the things that either inhibit or enable that, or if you've eaten/drank something that encourages speedier digestion and you crap out food before it has the chance to break down enough to let out some amount of it's energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
Hey Gameface - where's that write up of the 4Hour Body you promised? I'm really curious and have been experimenting a bit with what I've seen in the book. I'd love to get your full breakdown.
Pete, after all the vitriol I received at the mere mention of what I was doing in the last thread I figured it just wasn't worth it.
But, I think that if maybe I explain and show my progress and even change one persons perception of the idea, it will be worth the flaming. So today being exactly 6 weeks since I started I will write something up and if I don't get it finished tonight, I'll get it posted tomorrow.
You could always put it in the Music, Books, Movies orum - far less flaming over there and it is sort of a book review.Quote:
Originally Posted by gameface
Who has the paleo for athletes book they're willing to loan me?
1) Yeah, I get that there are more than merely carb differences but there are also similarities, maybe not so much with Paleo proper but skimming the document showed it was more "enlightened" than I expected. It wasn't predominantly simple sugar, simple carbs but instead it had much in common with a lot of sports nutrition recommendations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
It wasn't so much a knock on paleo as it was concern over recommending higher glycemic foods for reasons that might be suspect. Emphasizing low glycemic foods has huge long term health benefits so if a diet suggests processed grains like white rice, or white flour over brown rice or whole grain then that's a red flag.
2) Mostly body fat, probably some muscle loss too. With the body fat it probably fits with the conclusion that I tend to eat more calories on a low carb diet; maybe because of caloric density, novelty, etc. The other side of the equation is that I use carbs mostly for recovery after a run, ride, or tour and giving up the carbs left my legs feeling dead so I took more days off or didn't put in as big of effort as I normally would have.
Yesterday, for example, I did two laps in mineral starting from the BCC side and today after posting in this thread I did a quick tour up Mt. Aire from the I-80 side with the key, for me, to heading out day-after-day being carbs after the effort, not necessarily before.
There's a cup of brown rice on the stove right now loaded with garlic, onions, turmeric and other antiinflammatory spices, some shrimp, and then with five minutes left I fill the saucepan to the lid with spinach. It's a great recovery meal.
64 vs. 55 is not very significant. Fat is the primary driver of glycemic index, as I've already demonstrated: a baguette with a glycemic index of 95 declines 30 points, to 65, when butter and jam are added. The difference in GI between sugars ('starches', 'carbs') is insignificant compared to the decrease caused by adding fat...or the increase caused by intake of 'low-fat' foods, which I contend is a major factor behind the climbing rate of obesity.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltMind
Which means that eating a little of it leads to a little bit of mineral deficiency, masked by otherwise adequate intake?Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltMind
There is no question or debate that fatty meat is a superior source of nutrition to all grains, even if you don't count anti-nutrients. The reason to eat sugar is that you want some quick energy for physical exertion. (So the more active you are, the more sugar you can eat.)
And in the end, I don't care much about brown vs. white rice. Arguing about the nutritive value of grains is like arguing whether Skittles or Gummi Bears are better for you. EAT FATTY MEAT.
True. However, keep in mind that while associational studies don't prove a positive, they're not bad at proving a negative -- i.e. if you can't find an association, it's unlikely for there to be causation. So it's absolutely valid for me to cite associational studies that say "saturated fat isn't harmful".Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltMind
Post 'em up, boyo. You can't talk that kind of smack unless you can back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltMind
Let's look at the US Government recommendations (page 83):Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltMind
#1: 6-11 SERVINGS PER DAY OF "GRAINS". That's pure sugar. Carbohydrates are sugar, and as I've shown exhaustively, they have the same metabolic effects as sugar. That is a fact.
#2: 4-6 servings per day of "vegetables". Vegetables don't have meaningful calories unless you're talking about potatoes, which are all sugar anyway, so let's skip that.
#3: 4-6 servings per day of fruits. Fruits are 100% pure sugar.
Note that we still haven't eaten anything but sugar. The recommendations are for 45-65% of calories from sugar ('carbohydrate'). That is a high-sugar diet.
Recall that sugar ('carbohydrate') is a completely non-essential nutrient that the body has absolutely zero need for. You'll die without complete protein, and you'll die without the different types of fat, but you could live your entire post-weaning life without eating a single molecule of sugar. Yet sugar + toxins and antinutrients ("whole grains") is the foundation of the "food pyramid".
#4: 2-3 servings per day of fat-free or low-fat dairy. Another product full of sugar, guaranteed to make you fat, and guaranteed to bloat up all the non-whites who are mostly lactose intolerant.
#5: "6 or less" servings of lean meat, poultry, or fish. Finally some damn protein...but stripped of the essential fats that are our best energy source, and which actually cause us to feel full. Case in point: everyone puts cheese and mayonnaise on their fat-free skinless chicken breast.
#6: 4-5 servings per week of nuts, seeds, and legumes -- including peas and beans. OK, this isn't too far off.
#7: 2-3 servings per day of fats and oils. They recommend "soft margarine, vegetable oil, mayonnaise, salad dressing" -- in other words, TOXIC TRANS FATS and n-6 drenched seed oils. File under "how to age people prematurely and give them heart attacks".
#8: 5 servings or less per week of sweets and added sugars. This isn't too far off, either.
In contrast, here's my version of the paleo plan:
-Eat fatty meat, fatty fish, and eggs, cooked in butter, coconut oil, beef tallow, or their own included fat. Meat is a delivery vehicle for tasty, succulent fat.
-When you crave vegetables or fruits, eat them!
-Eat some sweet potatoes and root starches when you need glucose, depending on how active you are. Some rice won't kill you.
-Nuts, avocados, olive oil, and dairy (if you tolerate it well) are condiments.
-Stop worrying about servings, calories, or any of that other bullshit.
All observational studies, which show only that the sort of people who eat whole grains are more attentive to their health in general than the sort of people who don't. And do any of these studies compare whole grains with fatty grass-fed meat? No, they don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltMind
Once again, arguing over brown vs. white rice is like arguing whether Skittles or Gummi Bears are better for you. It's just sugar anyway, and in the context of a paleo diet, it doesn't matter much.
You're probably protein-satiated. Your body really wants to eat a certain amount of protein, and then you just say "Ugh, no more." But if you eat lean meats, you get to that level before you're really full.Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
So: eat fattier cuts of meat. You'll probably have to ask for untrimmed cuts at the butcher counter, because so many people are fat-phobic and demand their steaks be "trimmed". I get the 70/30 hamburger (which is more like 50/50) and buy untrimmed tri-tips, with the 1/2 to 3/4 inch layer of fat on the bottom. At first you'll look at it like "ew, fat", which will last about one meal. Pretty soon you'll be craving it, and wondering why everyone is so stupid as to throw away the best part!
Recall that Eskimos threw lean meat to their dogs, and Native Americans wouldn't eat lean bison at all...if they killed one by accident, they'd just cut the tongue out and leave the rest for the wolves.
I tend not to get most rock-licker humor. They say I take it for graniteQuote:
Originally Posted by geomorph
Spats, just curious on the paleo biz - isn't it likely that we are evolved to eat relatively large amounts of lean meat occasionally rather than fatty meat contiually? The meat the humans of that era ate was game, and they had to hunt it. Game is lean and huntig is hard. But when you kill a Gnu, there's a lot of lean meat for a while and the none until you got a new Gnu. And in the interval between Gnus they would probably eat whatever they could find, be it fruit, nuts, berries, root vegetables, insects, fish, perhaps even grain (after all, wheat didn't just domesticate itself, somebody had to eat it first).
Certainly they would crave fat, but its availability had to have been sporadic at best. This, it seems to me, would be the true "Paleo" diet. I am far from a student of the paleo diet but it seems that much rests upon the claim that this (fatty meat, etc.) is the way we evolved to eat. But I think my scenario is far more likely than the "paleo" diet that we hear about. What sez ye?
edit: the fucking "n" key on my keyboard seems to be gradually failing, sorry. What a pain i the ass.
For starters, I've already debunked the notion that phytic acid (the "anti-nutrient") in brown rice is unhealthy when consumed in moderation. The claim that since a lot can be harmful than a little must be harmful too is a logical fallacy for a number of reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
Next, the claim that "consuming the government-recommended high-sugar ('high-carb') diet and are therefore borderline deficient in most nutrients" is hardly accurate. Setting aside the issue of carbs, the recommendations place a great deal of emphasis on seeking out calories from nutrient dense food. That is, eat more fruits and vegetables. Eat lean meat. Cut down on salt, sugar and saturated fats. Eat fish too. Drink water. Eat fewer calories. Move around. Eating a balanced diet that includes carbs does not automatically mean nutrient deficiency and it's those types of conclusions that I'm referring to.
Another example that runs counter to the assertion about the recommendations is "#7: 2-3 servings per day of fats and oils. They recommend "soft margarine, vegetable oil, mayonnaise, salad dressing" -- in other words, TOXIC TRANS FATS" is that the documents calls for reducing trans fats and calls for margarine that contains zero trans fats.
There's also the conclusion regarding wheat in the China study and heart disease. Correlation does not mean causation. In China there is something different about regions where people eat wheat that creates an increased risk of heart disease but this does not mean wheat is causing the problem. The strong correlation between wheat eating regions as a variable and heart disease is not the, "REAL point of the China Study" as you claim. Instead, you are making the same type of claim with the China study as you accuse the authors of the Harvard Study of making.
Yet another example of contravening information is the usefulness of carbs in post workout recovery, especially for endurance athletes. Carbs have application that go well beyond just use during exercise.
That's an excellent question, and I've spent quite a bit of time investigating it.Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
Let's take wild caribou as a representative game animal, since we've got statistics for it. I wrote this piece as a debunking of Cordain's assertion that we couldn't have got many calories from saturated fat:
http://www.gnolls.org/715/when-the-c...initely-paleo/
The important points are:
1) Modern humans throw away much of the fat on a cow: I get free "trimmings" from the butcher all the time.
2) In contrast, Paleolithic humans not only didn't trim their meat: they ate the brains, the visceral fat, the marrow fat, the kidney fat, and other fatty tissues we throw away. Native Americans even crushed and boiled bison bones to render the fat trapped in the bone itself!
3) Since fat has over twice the calorie density of protein, we can calculate that the average caribou contains over half its edible calories from fat. (And this doesn't count the fact that more are killed in the fall, when they're at their fattest.)
If you want to get a solid idea of just how much fat was valued by hunting cultures, read the book "Imagining Head-Smashed-In" (Jack Brink), which is the history of the biggest known buffalo jump in North America. (It's a fascinating book.) Brink devotes multiple chapters to explaining the importance of animal fat to Native American bison hunters, and the lengths they would go to for it: sometimes it seems like half of the book is about fat!
Cheapskates can download it for free here:
http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120137
Absolutely true. The human diet and behavioral repertoire expanded dramatically somewhere between 180,000 and 120,000 years ago (still in Africa...ancestral Homo sapiens didn't leave until ~80,000 years ago.) At that point people were definitely eating fish and shellfish, and gathering all sorts of nuts and berries and insects and who knows what.Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
But grains have no nutritive value (or negative value) unless they're cooked. The first unequivocal evidence for regular consumption of wild grains is ~22,000 years ago in or near modern-day Israel, leading to the first evidence for agriculture (including domestication of grains) in the Middle East ~11,000 years ago. And this practice didn't spread to Europe for at least another 5,000 years.
A final note: be careful about breathless news articles advertising "Humans ate grains 80,000 years ago!!!111!!1! (or whatever)" The actual studies are based on residues left on stone tools: typically grains OF STARCH (i.e. from tubers, consumption of which is not disputed), which news articles mistake for cereal grains.
*** IMPORTANT NOTES FOR ANYONE TRYING THIS STUFF ***
First: The original article is aimed at losing fat, staying awake between meals, and general well-being. No matter how well you're adapted, burning fats for energy won't get you the same peak output as burning glucose.
So if you need peak performance at a particular time, you'll need to eat sugar ('carbs') in some form. Something high in glucose and with high glycemic index is a good bet. Basically, the more you prioritize peak performance during physical activity over weight loss or maintenance, the more glucose you can/should eat in order to fuel it. (Mashed potatoes or white rice instead of 'energy bars'? Hell yes, cheapskate!)
Example: resort skiing is fine, but if you're going to be skinning in the BC all day or running a race, low-carb is not your hot tip for that day.
Second: EAT MORE ANIMAL FAT.
As I said to ZZZ, your body really wants to eat a certain amount of protein, and then you just say "Ugh, no more." But if you eat lean meats, you get to that level before you're really full. This is great for about two weeks if you're trying to lose weight, but bad in the long term. Fake low-fat 'paleo' is the #1 cause of people hating paleo diets and falling off the wagon: you'll feel constantly dissatisfied and crave fatty junk food (or bread, pasta, and other 'carbs').
However, your calories have to come from somewhere. If not protein, your only two other options are fat and sugar. So unless you're exercising hard right that minute, fat is your option. And it's delicious!
So ditch those boneless/skinless/tasteless chicken breasts, that nasty, tough round steak, and that dry 90/10 hamburger that tastes like cardboard, and get yourself some animal fat. Cheap-ass 70/30 hamburger. Untrimmed tri-tip with that 3/4" fat pad on the bottom. Salmon and mackerel. You'll probably have to ask your butcher for untrimmed roasts: do it. Once you're eating real, fatty meats, you won't crave junk food so much.
Note: It is nearly impossible to eat too much animal fat. Since fat improves protein utilization, you don't need nearly so much protein on a high-fat diet as you do on a low-fat diet.