"Eat Like A Predator, Not Like Prey": Paleo In Six Easy Steps, A Motivational Guide

[jon turner]

What's the best balance between health and effectiveness? Do I pack a bag of sugar, or will dried fruit do the trick? I hate bars and gels, and find that a PBJ keeps me going longer than any of that stuff.

When I'm out and being active, I like the shot block style energy chew. I'll also grab a bar of hershey's chocolate and suck on chunks of chocolate if I'm stuck having to pick up something from a gas station. An apple usually gives me a nice energy boost too. In the end, if it works for you (PBJ), why change it? Try some different things to see if you can get some better results, maybe, but sounds like you've found something that works.

[MultiVerse]

What's the best balance between health and effectiveness? Do I pack a bag of sugar, or will dried fruit do the trick? I hate bars and gels, and find that a PBJ keeps me going longer than any of that stuff.

High glycemic, high glucose mixes like Sports Drinks don't really work for me so I make my own. It's a three part mix: 1 part agave nectar (easy to digest, low GI), 1 scoop maltodextrin, and unsweetened cocoa powder to take the edge off the agave since it's so sweet. I also like real food like PBJ or a turkey sandwich too if stopping is an option.

There was a good thread on this earlier this summer in Sprockets: [ame="http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2967335#post2967335"]Endurance Racing Nutrition[/ame].

[MultiVerse]

Moral: eat more whole grains, die sooner

You can talk all the bullshit associational studies you want, and you can claim all the theoretical anti-cancer properties you want for phytic acid, but the fact remains: eating more whole grains makes you die sooner. It's not a strong association -- but as DART was a controlled study, it neatly disproves your mistaken argument.[/B]

Keep in mind that the same source you cited in your post eats brown rice. Also recall that the last time you cited this same source he touted the benefits of eating a certain amount of fiber. The key phrase being: in moderation. For example, the Japanese eat a low fiber diet but they also eat a lot of rice. Further, the same source wrote earlier that he has reconsidered his position against fiber because total butyrate production clearly [increases] in the cellulose group, more than the pectin group and goes on to say, "On the other hand, I'm coming to realize that the Inuit may not have been as healthy as certain other non-industrial groups."

Yet you are consistently making ad hoc arguments that misrepresent various positions in this thread. I am not advocating a typical Western diet of flour, sugar and vegetable oils nor am I advocating gluten grains. My main assertion is that "whole grains are a net positive when consumed in moderate amounts" to which you responded with a study that postulates that eating more fiber makes you die sooner so eating more grains makes you die sooner, OMG.

What’s the threshold? If according to you, eating more fiber makes you die sooner than using your on again/off again style of argument eating zero fiber is best. Does that mean you recommend cutting out all fiber including fruits and vegetables? No. Of course not. Yet you still make arguments that resort to absurdities or misrepresent other points of view including, in some cases, your own sources.


Once again, my position in this thread is this: call it Paleo, basic sports nutrition guidelines, or whatever; increasing protein and fat consumption while replacing highly refined carb consumption with carbs from nutrient dense food is a very good thing to do. That way the carbs will come mostly from fruits and vegetables and a moderate amount of unprocessed grains like brown rice, corn and occasional oatmeal (skip it if gluten free is the goal) etc. all of which will provide plenty of vitamins, minerals and micronutrients. The protein from lean meat also contains moderate amounts of saturated fats, while fish and eggs contain lots of healthy omega-3 fats, add to the mix healthy monounsaturated fats from olive oil etc. and your performance will increase while your heart risk will decrease.

[hafilax]

The endurance racers on the board probably have things more finely tuned than I do but here's what I do.

For full day, all out efforts I follow the advice of Mark Twight and Craig Connally in their respective mountaineering books since they both seem to agree. Paleo for Athletes gives similar advice as well for endurance athletes.

My primary objective is hydration. Research indicates that the stomach most efficiently passes water into the gut (gastric emptying) when there is a certain amount of sugar in the stomach. This works out to approximately the amount in 2 Gu or other gels per hour and will allow you to pass about 1 L (quart) of water per hour. If you're working hard you will still be net negative and slowly dehydrating which is why this is important. Dehydration will lead to cloudy thinking and a sluggish body way before you run out of energy.

The sugar has the added bonus of keeping some glycogen in the blood stream to keep the muscles going. Maltodextrin is preferred. Something to do with it being a bunch of sugars glued together into a single molecule and the body only caring about the number of sugar molecules and not the total amount of sugar. This lets more energy get through while maintaining optimal gastric emptying.

Eating some protein will help with dealing with the insulin spike of the sugar as well as fueling muscle repair.

Fat will tend to slow you down as it requires a lot of energy to digest and so that little bit of energy that would have gone to your muscles is redirected to the digestive system. It also tends to shift the body out of the mode of efficiently converting fat into energy. Some mountaineers swear by drinking a tablespoon of olive oil before getting in the sleeping bag to make them sleepy and they say it warms them up as well. While active, the conversion of stored fat to energy is the primary system. My understanding is that you will get relatively little from food being eaten while active and that it will generally take away from the energy supplied from fat conversion.

This has worked for me and I have noticed that I don't bonk like I used to. I'm also a heavy sweater so I think that hydration may be more important for me than for others. I eat very little when I'm active besides water, sugar and a bit of protein. Twight and Connally are more scientific about it and custom design their own drinks and food. I eat a pretty light lunch with some fat in it to satiate the stomach and at a point in the day where having a slight drop in energy won't be disastrous. Personally, every time I eat peanut butter before working hard I've nearly vomited, literally. The 2 times I did it I had to stop. I work much better on sugar and water.

I usually do some carb loading in the 2 previous days and again at the end of the day to reload the glycogen system and enable muscle repair.

[Spats]

I've been a gout sufferer since I was 17 years old. Finally, now at the age of 36, I've gotten control of it. It's taken me the last year and a half, but life is so much better without going through the constant and debilitating attacks that had plagued me for so long. I've completely stopped drinking alcohol and have really curtailed my meat intake which has really seemed to help tremendously. I also am on 300 mg/day of Allopurinol which has made a huge difference too.

*** WARNING: I am not a doctor! You are responsible for your own health. ***

AFAIK the big issue with gout is output, not intake. If you eat more purines, your body naturally excretes more. But some people have a problem clearing them.

The big culprits there are alcohol, which you've already reduced, and...fructose.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7219473.stm
"The risk of developing the condition was significantly increased with an intake level of five to six servings of sugary soft drink per week. [That's less than 1 per day.]

This link was independent of other risk factors for gout such as body mass index, age, high blood pressure and alcohol intake.

Diet soft drinks did not increase the risk of gout but fruit juice and fructose rich fruits (apples and oranges) were associated with a higher risk, the researchers said."
[...]
Dr Andrew Bamji, president of the British Society for Rheumatology, said anecdotally cases of gout appeared to be rising. "When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense in that fructose inhibits the excretion of uric acid. I will certainly change my advice to patients and I suspect the number drinking fructose is quite large."

Remember that table sugar is half fructose, and bullshit circumlocutions for sugar like "agave nectar" are far more than half fructose.

This article has a lot of good links to actual studies (including the one from the article above), and another powerful suggestion for athletic people:
http://www.emotionsforengineers.com/...s-of-gout.html
"1. - Lactic acid, as can be generated by strenuous exercise, fructose (e.g. from high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)), or alcohol consumption, reduces the excretion of uric acid."

In other words, exercise + sugar-laden "energy bars" as recommended above = you are going to have a gout problem.

If you need quick energy during exercise, you need to stick with glucose. Those little diabetic glucose tabs work but are very expensive. I just take a little container of cooked white rice. Seriously: white rice is basically all "starch" (= glucose), and is probably a better energy food than anything you spend $2 on for two ounces of processed soy and sugar.



This all makes sense once you think about it: if red meat and organ meat consumption caused gout, every Paleo dieter in the world would have gout. But the real problem isn't purines, it's fructose...which paleo diets heavily reduce.

[Dantheman]

What's the best balance between health and effectiveness? Do I pack a bag of sugar, or will dried fruit do the trick? I hate bars and gels, and find that a PBJ keeps me going longer than any of that stuff.

Endurance nutrition varies so much by individual. Personally, I do much much better on real food. If I don't eat solids my digestive system seems to shut down easily and I get queasy and getting even water down becomes a struggle. Yet some people do best on nothing but gels and shot blocks. You can read all you want from the real experts and internet wannabes, but in the end you just have to experiment and find out what works for you.

[Mofro261]

I also have another question. Is a single controlled study commonly taken as dispositive proof of a "fact" in scientific investigation (particularly one as seemingly sweeping and extravagant - to my layperson's eye - as "eating more whole grains makes you die sooner")?
I'm interested in replies to these questions not only from Spats, but also from the scientists and people with strong background in, and/or knowledge of, experimental science who are posting in or reading this thread.

No, it is most certainly the definition of "Bad Science" - laid out in the youtube link from Spats. (YouTube - Big Fat Fiasco pt. 1)

Good Science/Scientist:
Tries to be objective
The ultimate goal: the truth
Open to all alternate theories
Considers all of the evidence
Contrary evidence means the theory is probably wrong
Theory is not considered valid unless the supporting evidence is consistent and repeatable

Bad Science/Scientist:
Falls in love with the theory
Ultimate goal: to prove he’s right
Ignores alternate theories
Ignores contrary evidence or explains it away

Spats, as many have pointed out your initial writings on paleo are filled with good ideas, observations, and suggestions for increasing a healthy lifestyle.

But your writing style leads itself to criticisms, since it wants to deal with complex subjects in terms of absolutes and often includes hyperbole and a bit of arrogance and distrust of the data (see even Cordain Whiffs sometimes). Attempts to point out alternate hypotheses, or that your theories may not be completely valid based on the science you cite, are taken as personal attacks.

When I go to pubmed and enter "Cordain L" I return 59 articles, many of them addressing the tenets of paleo. From my limited reading of these scientific articles, he does not try to frame an arguement that is not substantiated by the research, or relies on a single piece of data to hold up his hypothesis.

Remke, Cordain etal from British Journal of Nutrition (2010), vol 104, p1666–1687.

This article alone cites 191 references. He does not cite any blogs among them, which by in large contain opinions based on other peoples primary research.

Moral: eat more whole grains, die sooner

vs.

Together with other human-caused environmental changes, these disparities are likely to play an important role in the aetiology of Western disease. For example, the dyslipidaemic effect of (hyper energetic) carbohydrates, the positive relation between protein intake, satiety and satiation as well as the many beneficial effects attributed to LCP suggest a beneficial role for the consumption of Paleolithic-like diets. These diets do not as much affect our life expectancy, but rather affect our years in good health.

he acknowleges multiple factors may interplay-

Important dietary and environmental changes, especially in affluent countries, that may adversely affect health and well-being include a decreased n-3/n-6 fatty acid ratio, combination of high intakes of SFA and carbohydrates (5), introduction of industrially produced trans fatty acids, reduced exposure to sunlight, lower intakes of vitamins D and K, imbalanced intake of antioxidants, high intakes of carbohydrates with high glycaemic indices and loads, and little dietary fibre. Together, with a sedentary lifestyle, these dietary alterations gave rise to an unprecedented body composition characterised by increased fat mass and sarcopenia(6).

By modeling a number of dietary constraints, he comes up with median numbers to compare ancestral nutrient consumption as compared to today. In this analysis, median SFA as a percentage of total Fat intake varied from 31-38.8% across the dietary models. Only under conditions of selective meat eating (eating marrow, brain,adipose tissue, leaving muscle meat behind) do they come up with scenarios where SFA intake is greater than UFA's.

We found (range of medians in en%) intakes of moderate-to-high protein (25–29), moderate-to-high fat (30–39) and moderate carbohydrates (39–40). The fatty acid composition was SFA (11·4–12·0), MUFA (5·6–18·5) and PUFA (8·6–15·2)

His take home is not "saturated fat is bad or good". His take home is less than 10% or more than 15% SFA intake as a percentage of total calories is discordant with our evolved human genome.

I don't think this article is available freely over the web, but I get the pdf's through affiliation subscription at the University, and if anyone would like the full pdf please pm me.

I do not work in the nutrition or exercise physiology- I am far from an expert in these fields.

[Tuckerman]

The endurance racers on the board probably have things more finely tuned than I do but here's what I do.

For full day, all out efforts I follow the advice of Mark Twight and Craig Connally in their respective mountaineering books since they both seem to agree. Paleo for Athletes gives similar advice as well for endurance athletes.

My primary objective is hydration. Research indicates that the stomach most efficiently passes water into the gut (gastric emptying) when there is a certain amount of sugar in the stomach. This works out to approximately the amount in 2 Gu or other gels per hour and will allow you to pass about 1 L (quart) of water per hour. If you're working hard you will still be net negative and slowly dehydrating which is why this is important. Dehydration will lead to cloudy thinking and a sluggish body way before you run out of energy.

The sugar has the added bonus of keeping some glycogen in the blood stream to keep the muscles going. Maltodextrin is preferred. Something to do with it being a bunch of sugars glued together into a single molecule and the body only caring about the number of sugar molecules and not the total amount of sugar. This lets more energy get through while maintaining optimal gastric emptying.

Eating some protein will help with dealing with the insulin spike of the sugar as well as fueling muscle repair.

Fat will tend to slow you down as it requires a lot of energy to digest and so that little bit of energy that would have gone to your muscles is redirected to the digestive system. It also tends to shift the body out of the mode of efficiently converting fat into energy. Some mountaineers swear by drinking a tablespoon of olive oil before getting in the sleeping bag to make them sleepy and they say it warms them up as well. While active, the conversion of stored fat to energy is the primary system. My understanding is that you will get relatively little from food being eaten while active and that it will generally take away from the energy supplied from fat conversion.

This has worked for me and I have noticed that I don't bonk like I used to. I'm also a heavy sweater so I think that hydration may be more important for me than for others. I eat very little when I'm active besides water, sugar and a bit of protein. Twight and Connally are more scientific about it and custom design their own drinks and food. I eat a pretty light lunch with some fat in it to satiate the stomach and at a point in the day where having a slight drop in energy won't be disastrous. Personally, every time I eat peanut butter before working hard I've nearly vomited, literally. The 2 times I did it I had to stop. I work much better on sugar and water.

I usually do some carb loading in the 2 previous days and again at the end of the day to reload the glycogen system and enable muscle repair.

I use to get super sleepy during races and could never figure out why. Then at around hour 11 mile 46ish running the VT50 a dude caught up to me and asked how I was doing, I told him I was sleepy he gave me 2 bite size snickers (I don't typically eat that kind of thing but did anyway). Almost instantly after getting the first one down I was at the other end of the spectrum and super awake. Problem was that it did not last long. So the next spring another 50 and super sleepy I did not really eat much a few gu packs some gummi bears. But then I figured it out one thing was I needed a gu every half hour or so also I was not eating enough the crabs/sugar in the snickers was get burned too fast. More potatoes, watermelon and real foods helped even soup. Oh and amino acids.

[Spats]

Come on over and let me fix you up a bowl of "strained corn".

BWAAAAA! Leave it to Viva to catch that...you're probably the person here best qualified to bust my balls. I'm surprised you haven't done it yet

I need to qualify "food" as "things your body can actually digest". Cellulose isn't digestible to humans, which AFAIK is what makes corn kernels come out the back end: the little outer sheath is basically all cellulose and our gut can't break it down. (Note that this problem doesn't happen with corn tortillas or corn flour.) Right?

Corn isn't food on a paleo diet anyway

Mainly I'm trying to bust the "meat rots in your colon" myth. Meat is very well digested: the enzymes pepsin, trypsin, and chymotripsin exist to break down proteins into amino acids.

The proteins trypsin sometimes has trouble with are those high in proline, like...wheat and other grains ("prolamins"). And remember "trypsin inhibitors"? One of the antinutrients in grains? Yeah.

[woodstocksez]

BWAAAAA! Leave it to Viva to catch that...you're probably the person here best qualified to bust my balls. I'm surprised you haven't done it yet

You really are fucking immune, man. No disparagement of Viva intended, but he is not, by a long shot, the only person here qualified to bust your balls. You seem a reasonably intelligent guy. You're knowledgeable about a variety of subjects and seem very knowledgeable about some (you appear to know a lot about nutrition and the related chemistry, for instance, though I know so little that I'm certainly not the best judge). But ...

You. are. a. fool. And you're often intellectually dishonest. I'm hardly the only one to notice, as, for instance, the responses to my rhetorical questions indicate. If you can't work it up to approach these things in the spirit of a true academic, then how about you STFUYFM.

[Platinum Pete]

You really are fucking immune, man. No disparagement of Viva intended, but he is not, by a long shot, the only person here qualified to bust your balls. You seem a reasonably intelligent guy. You're knowledgeable about a variety of subjects and seem very knowledgeable about some (you appear to know a lot about nutrition and the related chemistry, for instance, though I know so little that I'm certainly not the best judge). But ...

You. are. a. fool. And you're often intellectually dishonest. I'm hardly the only one to notice, as, for instance, the responses to my rhetorical questions indicate. If you can't work it up to approach these things in the spirit of a true academic, then how about you STFUYFM.

I am not a scientist and have not read most of the long sciency posts in this thread, but I'd like to disagree with your recommendation to STFUYFM. Here's why:
If the scientists amongst you want to argue about what's right and wrong in someone's position or suggestion, then go for it and let us see that dialogue so that the non-scientists can ask questions, get educated a bit, and see what works for us. We all know that science, as a discipline, is not perfect - methods change over time and yield different results, politics interferes by way of the government pushing research one way or another or taking official positions like the FDA guidelines (as informed by farm constituencies and agri-business), business interferes by stifiling research that does not go along with their bottom line, academia interferes by making the researchers pimp themselves out for grant money and publishing that may not always allow for the greatest freedom to find the answer that doesn't fit those benefactors, and on, etc. These things all get in the way of ideas reaching us in the hoi polloi. If Spats or any other opinioned person wants to present what they know and open it to scrutiny then I say have at it, let those with anecdotal experience (in this case Paleo adopters) chime in with what does or doesn't work for them. Setting a standard of only reporting what is proven to be absolute starves everyone of what may work part of the time for some people - and that "part of the time for some people" bit is pretty important to me as I look for ideas, particularly about what may or may not work for my body. While I'm talking about my body, I'd like to point out that I'm in control of it and don't expect what works for one person to be universal, so let's stop freaking out if you don't sleep better after having a steak dinner instead of a zucchini sandwich or whatever the fuck - try some shit out and see what works for you. This stuff will not kill you in reasonable doses any more than eating a bowl of Cheerios will. Don't shoosh folks who have something to share that might benefit others. I am all for passionate debate and barking at the guy you think is an idiot, but don't try to shut their ideas out - this particular thread is a clear example that - whoever is right about the science - this shit works for some of the dudes doing, so let others hear about it and make their own decision. Call people out on their methods, the validity of their research, or even question the factuality of what they say they've experienced, but let other's hear the ideas and make thier own decision.
That's all.

[mrryde]

Someone posted this on another forum I am on, discussing this topic. Spats or anyone have an opinion?

TEN PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CARNIVORES (MEAT EATERS) AND HERBIVORES (PLANT EATERS).
IS THE HUMAN BODY DESIGNED TO EAT ANIMAL PRODUCTS?

3.A carnivore or omnivore's saliva does not contain digestive enzymes. Man's, as well as other herbivore's saliva is alkaline, containing carbohydrate digestive enzymes.

4.A carnivore's stomach secretes powerful digestive enzymes with about 10 times the amount of hydrochloric acid than a human or herbivore. The pH is less than or equal to "1" with food in the stomach, for a carnivore or omnivore. For humans or other herbivores, the pH ranges from 4 to 5 with food in the stomach. Hence, man must prepare his meats with laborious cooking or frying methods. E. Coli bacteria, salmonella, campylobacter, trichina worms [parasites] or other pathogens would not survive in the stomach of a lion.

5.A carnivore's or omnivore's small intestine is three to six times the length of its trunk. This is a tool designed for rapid elimination of food that rots quickly. Man's, as well as other herbivore's small intestines are 10 to 12 times the length of their body, and winds itself back and forth in random directions. This is a tool designed for keeping food in it for long enough periods of time so that all the valuable nutrients and minerals can be extracted from it before it enters the large intestine.

6.A carnivore's or omnivore's large intestine is relatively short and simple, like a pipe. This passage is also relatively smooth and runs fairly straight so that fatty wastes high in cholesterol can easily slide out before they start to putrefy. Man's, as well as other herbivore's large intestines, or colons, are puckered and pouched, an apparatus that runs in three directions (ascending, traversing and descending), designed to hold wastes that originally were foods high in water content. This is so that the fluids can be extracted from these wastes, now that all the useful nutrients and minerals have been extracted and the long journey through the small intestine is over. Substances high in fat and cholesterol that have been putrefying for hours during their long stay in the small intestine tend to get stuck in the pockets that line the large intestine.

7.Animal flesh, composed of the most highly complex type of protein that exists, requires vast amounts of uric acid to process. Uric acid is released into the system in amounts necessary to break proteins down into amino acids. Uric acid is a toxic substance responsible for the aging process and must be flushed out and dealt with. That is one of the jobs of the liver. In relative terms, a carnivore's liver is a tool designed with the capacity to eliminate ten times as much uric acid as the liver of man or other plant eater.

http://www.waoy.org/26.html

Edit: Just clicked the link which is for the Winnipeg Assembly of Yahweh. Thats all the rebuttal i need

[woodstocksez]

I am not a scientist and have not read most of the long sciency posts in this thread, but I'd like to disagree with your recommendation to STFUYFM. Here's why:
If the scientists amongst you want to argue about what's right and wrong in someone's position or suggestion, then go for it and let us see that dialogue so that the non-scientists can ask questions, get educated a bit, and see what works for us. We all know that science, as a discipline, is not perfect - methods change over time and yield different results, politics interferes by way of the government pushing research one way or another or taking official positions like the FDA guidelines (as informed by farm constituencies and agri-business), business interferes by stifiling research that does not go along with their bottom line, academia interferes by making the researchers pimp themselves out for grant money and publishing that may not always allow for the greatest freedom to find the answer that doesn't fit those benefactors, and on, etc. These things all get in the way of ideas reaching us in the hoi polloi. If Spats or any other opinioned person wants to present what they know and open it to scrutiny then I say have at it, let those with anecdotal experience (in this case Paleo adopters) chime in with what does or doesn't work for them. Setting a standard of only reporting what is proven to be absolute starves everyone of what may work part of the time for some people - and that "part of the time for some people" bit is pretty important to me as I look for ideas, particularly about what may or may not work for my body. While I'm talking about my body, I'd like to point out that I'm in control of it and don't expect what works for one person to be universal, so let's stop freaking out if you don't sleep better after having a steak dinner instead of a zucchini sandwich or whatever the fuck - try some shit out and see what works for you. This stuff will not kill you in reasonable doses any more than eating a bowl of Cheerios will. Don't shoosh folks who have something to share that might benefit others. I am all for passionate debate and barking at the guy you think is an idiot, but don't try to shut their ideas out - this particular thread is a clear example that - whoever is right about the science - this shit works for some of the dudes doing, so let others hear about it and make their own decision. Call people out on their methods, the validity of their research, or even question the factuality of what they say they've experienced, but let other's hear the ideas and make thier own decision.
That's all.

I agree with everything you say (there may be minor quibbles - or not - but I don't think it necessary to consider it all painstakingly enough to tease that out). I think you missed my point(s). I have a lot to say generally on this subject, but you can also just read some of the things others have said above - I endorse a lot of it. Maybe I'll feel moved later to flesh out more what I said above, but I really don't think it should be necessary. To me, it's obvious what's wrong with the way Spats presents his purported knowledge and understanding, as well as why that should be addressed in its own right, apart from any particular content. You may also want to consider the manner in which Spats regularly denigrates (often reasonable) points of view with which he disagrees.

Edit to add ...

And I said "in the spirit of a true academic" for a reason. I am not especially attached to whether the label "scientist" or "academic" properly is assigned to someone's job or academic background. That's meaningful, but not dispositive as to the value of what someone has to say. Read what Mofro had to say above. That's the type of thing I'm talking about.

[Platinum Pete]

I agree with everything you say (there may be minor quibbles - or not - but I don't think it necessary to consider it all painstakingly enough to tease that out). I think you missed my point(s). I have a lot to say generally on this subject, but you can also just read some of the things others have said above - I endorse a lot of it. Maybe I'll feel moved later to flesh out more what I said above, but I really don't think it should be necessary. To me, it's obvious what's wrong with the way Spats presents his purported knowledge and understanding, as well as why that should be addressed in its own right, apart from any particular content. You may also want to consider the manner in which Spats regularly denigrates (often reasonable) points of view with which he disagrees.

Right on, I didn't mean to harsh anybody's mellow, I just want to learn shit and can't do that when an open exchange of ideas is strongly discouraged. As for Spats as a source, using a non-food topic for an example - I'm not on his team with all the gold-loving Fed-hating verge of a revolution stuff he says about economics, but I'm glad to read it cuz it makes me think about what I believe and why. All good.

[Spats]

I'll get to more detailed rebuttals later, because I have work I need to do and fun I need to have and this is taking a lot of my time -- but for now, I'll just note that people are citing Loren Cordain (Mr. Paleo Diet, even if he's wrong about fat) as an example of 'good science'. I consider that a victory condition

Edit: Just clicked the link which is for the Winnipeg Assembly of Yahweh. Thats all the rebuttal i need

Shit like that is so false it's comical. I'll just hit a few of them, because it's fun.

Here's the "short and simple, like a pipe" digestive tract of a cat (#6):

http://library.thinkquest.org/15401/learn.html

"Hence, man must prepare his meats with laborious cooking or frying methods."

We can eat meat raw, with no problems, and extract all the available energy. We can eat vegetables raw, but we get almost no calories out of them because we can't digest most of their constituents (e.g. cellulose). It's only the GRAINS, BEANS, and TUBERS that we have to prepare with "laborious cooking or frying methods." Because they're POISONOUS to humans in their natural state, unlike meat.

Therefore, man is a meat-eating predator, with the ability to partially digest vegetable matter in order to get through tough times.

"A predator has a gait, large paws and claws, which enable him to hunt, chase and trap his prey."

And humans have STONE TOOLS, which we figured out somewhere around 2.6 million years ago. Even chimpanzees hunt and kill colobus monkeys with spears (sorry, no video of the spears, just a regular monkey hunt):
http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html

[woodstocksez]

My main assertion is that "whole grains are a net positive when consumed in moderate amounts" to which you responded with a study that postulates that eating more fiber makes you die sooner so eating more grains makes you die sooner, OMG.

Yes, one of my other "questions" concerned this. On the face of it, the conclusion of the study, as reported in that blog post, doesn't provide support for Spats' assertion. Presumably, even if you assume the conclusion of the study is as above, you could maintain whole grain intake the same and increase fiber intake in another way, still finding the increased mortality, i.e., mortality increases without regard to whole grain intake. Or, you could increase the whole grain intake and reduce fiber intake in another way so that overall fiber intake remains the same, finding no increase in mortality, i.e. increasing whole grain intake has no effect on mortality.

Chuc mung nam moi, bitches.

[ilikecandy]

Yes, one of my other "questions" concerned this. On the face of it, the conclusion of the study, as reported in that blog post, doesn't provide support for Spats' assertion. Presumably, even if you assume the conclusion of the study is as above, you could maintain whole grain intake the same and increase fiber intake in another way, still finding the increased mortality, i.e., mortality increases without regard to whole grain intake. Or, you could increase the whole grain intake and reduce fiber intake in another way so that overall fiber intake remains the same, finding no increase in mortality, i.e. increasing whole grain intake has no effect on mortality.

Chuc mung nam moi, bitches.

I agree. Taking away "eat more grains, die sooner" from what he posted is a pretty serious and obvious problem, way bigger than the content, which could be correct for all I know

[rather ripped]

: You're knowledgeable about a variety of subjects and seem very knowledgeable about some (you appear to know a lot about nutrition and the related chemistry, for instance, though I know so little that I'm certainly not the best judge). But ...

Nutrition is a weak science.

To add a simple approach to the discussion, what harm will Paleo do. Do we need grains, dairy and legumes? It's pseudo science. Try it for sixty days as strict as you can and do your own science.

Cordain's book is so simple. Robb Wolf is easy to access via his web site. His theory - nutrition lacks a theory.

So what harm will come of people who eat Paleo? Type II Diabetes - eating Paleo could completely change America's sugar problem.

Finally, a few years ago nearly all doctors would scoff at the suggestions of Cordain, but now it has become far more accepted. The reason, it works.

[XXX-er]

If you wana study a situtation where people had a very rapid change in diet/lifestyle the Inuit ate pretty much nothing but meat over the winters had a very active lifestyle as hunters/gatherers ,they quit the nomadic lifestyle went into settlements , started eating the white man food all in a very short time with bad effects on their health

everyone seems to look for the magic bullet , do that one thing eat that one food and it will solve all their problems good luck with finding the magic bullet and then keeping up the regimen

My take besides not eating the obviuos crap like sugars and pop just move more /eat less of everything ...moderation

[Cono Este]

Does a bottle of Worcestershire or Tabasco sauce ruin these theories?

I am hoping to sign on.

Great thread btw Spats. Also a great point raise by iceman in regards to spoilt meats being a staple. Certainly undeniable.

[rather ripped]

As I understand it, no salt. So we don't add salt to food nor do we tend to buy sodium added foods. We cheat once in a while.

Try it man. Are you lifting and training?

[Spats]

On the face of it, the conclusion of the study, as reported in that blog post, doesn't provide support for Spats' assertion.

Yes, it absolutely does. Unlike all the associational bullshit we've been arguing over, this was a controlled study, with whole grain intake the only variable. (It was supposed to be 'fiber', but that 'fiber' was provided by whole grains.)

The reason associational studies come to different conclusions is that whole grain intake is ASSOCIATED with lots of other healthy behaviors. But it turns out when you control for that variable and that variable alone, those ASSOCIATIONS go away.

One might also examine the Helsinki Businessmen Study, which found that a controlled medical intervention composed of "Diet, smoking, exercise, antihypertensive drugs, cholesterol lowering drugs" produced a 46% increase in mortality...and a MORE THAN DOUBLING of heart disease!

Yes, the treatment suggested by the lipid hypothesis caused a massive increase in death rate.

Of course, you have to read the full study to see this startling fact, because it's mentioned nowhere in the abstract and danced around by the entire study. But the data remains:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00167-0117.pdf

It's almost comical to see them hedging around the results: "The findings on 1 h blood glucose suggest that factors related to glucose tolerance explain in part the excess mortality in the intervention group compared with the control group."

Like, I don't know...eating a consistent low-fat, high-sugar diet causes problems with glucose metabolism, leading to metabolic syndrome with Type II diabetes and heart disease? Naw, must have been a problem with the study

Unsurprisingly, controlled studies on diet are not popular because they tend to produce politically inconvenient results.

Does a bottle of Worcestershire or Tabasco sauce ruin these theories?

Nope.

Some of the more hardcore people say "absolutely no added salt or sugar" which makes most sauces problematic. I'm personally not that strict: compared to the 13 teaspoons of sugar in one single 16oz Coca-Cola, a little bit in a sauce isn't a big deal.

Same with salt IMO. Our bodies are pretty good at metabolizing small amounts of fructose and salt...it's chronic overconsumption that causes problems. (This is distinct from frank poisons like wheat germ agglutinin, which are not nutrients in any dose.)

As I've said before, the biggest gains come from:
-Getting your n-3/n-6 under control by ditching seed oils and excessive nut consumption, and using only animal fats/coconut oil
-~2000 IU vitamin D3 supplementation and light n-3 supplementation
-Cut the sodas and fruit juices
-Going gluten-free and replacing the calories with fatty meat

Everything else is far secondary to these concerns. The Kitavans eat shitloads of tubers and are very healthy and long-lived despite a low-protein diet -- because they use lots of coconut and palm oils, don't eat plant toxins in the form of grains or beans, and spend a lot of time in the sun.

And let me emphasize again that Cordain, while instrumental in much of the research, is flat wrong about saturated fat and recommending lean meats. The numbers in his scientific papers don't even add up!
http://www.gnolls.org/715/when-the-c...initely-paleo/

I gather he's moderated his position recently, but his books still carry the old busted dogma.

[Dantheman]

http://www.waoy.org/26.html

9.A carnivore's frame of mind is totally geared for hunting and killing. Man's frame of mind is compassionate, friendly and reveres life. When the lion spots another furry animal, something might instinctively click in his head that tells him to hurry up and get dinner. When man spots a furry animal, rather than show his children how to take its life and eat it, a more likely instinct is to pull over, get the camera out and take a picture. Put a young baby chick and an apple in a crib with a six-month-old baby. What will he instinctively attempt to eat and play with?

This. Is. Awesome.


On salt: Not eating processed foods is pretty much all you have to do to not have a salt intake problem. Not appropriately seasoning your own cooking is just a good way to cook bland boring food.

[DeutschBag]

*** WARNING: I am not a doctor! You are responsible for your own health. ***

AFAIK the big issue with gout is output, not intake. If you eat more purines, your body naturally excretes more. But some people have a problem clearing them.

Thank you for the reply, Spats. After speaking with my brother for a bit about this topic last night, I've decided to start slow as any shock to the system isn't good for gout sufferers. I already watch my sugar/fructose intake very carefully, but will be even more dilligent about it now. My first big step is to quit eating breakfast cereals such as grape nuts or any type of granola (which is so popular here in Germany) and start eating more eggs and meats at breakfast. I'll see how my body reacts to this and adjust accordingly. But, I think since I now no longer drink any alcohol and my intake of HFCS is essentially null, I should be okay. I still do need to stay on the Allopurinol, however, as it's really done a great job in keeping my blood uric acid levels down.

Again, thanks for the reply. I apprecaite it! Now, time to read through the rest of this thread. Sitting is about all I can do today. I'm burnt from touring this past weekend and need a day of rest!

[woodstocksez]

I agree. Taking away "eat more grains, die sooner" from what he posted is a pretty serious and obvious problem, way bigger than the content, which could be correct for all I know

I've given careful consideration to your thoughtful post.

????????????????