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

[Dantheman]

Why so many in the other camp continue to stay with the old?

People are often just very resistant to change no matter what. Also, for many people what they eat plays a large role in defining who they are. So, when some aspect of their diet is questioned it's like they've been personally insulted. Their rational brain shuts down, they react emotionally and they retreat to an intractable position. It's been my experience that discussing nutrition/diet is one step below religion and politics (barely) and I generally avoid it IRL.

Add in the massive amounts of misinformation and outright bullshit out there regarding nutrition and people can easily support their current habits with "facts". Case-in-point: I have a brother-in-law who is an MD and almost certainly smarter than me. He eats a largely vegetarian diet, is skinny-fat with a noticeable gut, takes statins for high cholesterol and has been unsuccessfully trying to lose 15-20 lbs for years. He thinks a paleo diet will cause heart disease solely due to the meat and fat content with no consideration for source and quality. Several members of the family are now on the paleo program and we all have impeccable bloodwork with zero CVD risk factors. As far as he is concerned we are all simply statistical outliers. It's a truly impressive level of willful disregard for evidence from an otherwise highly intelligent and scientifically-minded person.

[Spats]

I often see that the more "educated" someone is in the field, the more resistant they are to change. For instance, I know someone from a very small mountain town (non-touristy) with no particular nutrition training, and she said "Everyone pretty much knows that if you want to lose weight you have to cut your carbs and eat more meat and vegetables."

Sure, most of them aren't willing to do that long-term, but they at least know they're not fat because of a whole grain deficiency. They've been watching all the skinny TV people pushing low-fat diets forever, and they've tried a bunch of them, and they know they never lost much weight on anything but Atkins.

[grrrr]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...l-vegetarians/

[Spats]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...l-vegetarians/

Oh god, that load of horseshit again. (Note the date: 2012.)

Yes, if you go back far enough, our ancestors were vegetarian. They also weighed about 60# and had brains smaller than a modern chimp. Paleo chooses to emulate the diets of ANATOMICALLY MODERN HUMANS -- from ~200K-100KYa to just before the agricultural revolution. And despite the distortions of a few vegetarian propagandists, the overwhelming weight of the archaeological evidence is that those diets were primarily of meat -- and that those people were taller, stronger, and healthier in every respect than the agriculturalists who followed them.

Someone in the comments already linked the article series in which I explore the ACTUAL EVIDENCE we have for Paleolithic diets. I'm not done -- but our ancestors were already eating meat we killed by ~2.6 million years ago, and we were still smallish bipedal Australopithecines with small brains. Here's Part I (of six and counting):
http://www.gnolls.org/2754/big-brain...more-numerous/

More false statements: "Our guts are remarkably similar to those of chimpanzees and orangutans. "Only in comparison to a horse or gorilla. In reality, we have a much larger small intestine and a much smaller colon than chimpanzees -- exactly what you'd expect from an animal that gets more of its nutrition from nutritionally dense meat, and less from nutritionally poor plant matter.

The fact that people believe horseshit like that article is a testament to the shitty state of our educational system.

[that dude who did that thing]

People are often just very resistant to change no matter what. Also, for many people what they eat plays a large role in defining who they are. So, when some aspect of their diet is questioned it's like they've been personally insulted. Their rational brain shuts down, they react emotionally and they retreat to an intractable position. It's been my experience that discussing nutrition/diet is one step below religion and politics (barely) and I generally avoid it IRL.

Add in the massive amounts of misinformation and outright bullshit out there regarding nutrition and people can easily support their current habits with "facts". Case-in-point: I have a brother-in-law who is an MD and almost certainly smarter than me. He eats a largely vegetarian diet, is skinny-fat with a noticeable gut, takes statins for high cholesterol and has been unsuccessfully trying to lose 15-20 lbs for years. He thinks a paleo diet will cause heart disease solely due to the meat and fat content with no consideration for source and quality. Several members of the family are now on the paleo program and we all have impeccable bloodwork with zero CVD risk factors. As far as he is concerned we are all simply statistical outliers. It's a truly impressive level of willful disregard for evidence from an otherwise highly intelligent and scientifically-minded person.

Rather than accusing your brother of willful disregard, consider the difference between "evidence" and anecdote. Many smokers live to their 90's without suffering lung cancer. Those are anecdotes. If you want to have a rational discussion with your brother, bring him evidence in the form of peer-reviewed studies of the effects of different diet choices on varoius aspects of health. If you just want to feel superior to him, keep doing what you're doing. You know, like those people whose identity is partly defined by what they eat and so they feel insulted when their dietary choices are questioned.

[smitchell333]

Uhhh Ohhh

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/too-much-protein-could-lead-to-early-death-study-says/2014/03/04/0af0603e-a3b5-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html

Could too much protein put you on the path toward an early grave?

For middle-aged people who consume lots of meat, milk and cheese, the answer could be a resounding yes, according to a new study published Tuesday in the journal Cell Metabolism.
U.S. and Italian researchers tracked thousands of adults for nearly two decades and found that those who ate a diet high in animal proteins during middle age were four times more likely to die of cancer than contemporaries with low-protein diets -- a risk factor comparable to smoking. They also were several times more likely to die of diabetes, and nearly twice as likely to die in general.
“The great majority of Americans could reduce their protein intake,” said one of the study’s co-authors, Valter Longo, a University of Southern California gerontology professor and director of the school’s Longevity Institute. “The best change would be to lower the daily intake of all proteins, but especially animal-derived proteins.”
That advice comes with a caveat.
Even as researchers warned of the health risks of high-protein diets in middle age, they said eating more protein actually could be a smart move for people over 65. “At older ages, it may be important to avoid a low-protein diet to allow the maintenance of healthy weight and protection from frailty,” another co-author, USC gerontology professor Eileen Crimmins, said in a release detailing the findings.
Exactly how much protein belongs in the average diet has proven a topic of perpetual debate, one complicated by popular diets such as Atkins and Paleo, which rely heavily on animal-based proteins to help people shed weight. While such diets might succeed in that short-term goal, Longo said they could be leading to worse health down the road.
Part of the confusion, he argues, is that researchers too often have treated adulthood as a single period of life, rather than closely examining the many ways in which our bodies change as we grow older. In studying data about protein intake over many years, he says the picture becomes clearer: What’s good for you at one age might be harmful at another.
In the study published Tuesday, researchers defined a “high-protein” diet as one in which at least 20 percent of calories came from protein; a “low-protein” diet was defined as less than 10 percent. They found that even moderate amounts of protein consumption among middle-aged people had detrimental effects over time, a result that held true across ethnic, educational and health backgrounds.
Longo said many middle-aged Americans, along with an increasing number of people around the world, are eating twice and sometimes three times as much protein as they need, with too much of that coming from animals rather than plant-based foods such as nuts, seeds and beans.
He said adults in middle age would be better off adhering to the recommendation of several top health agencies to consume about 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight each day -- roughly 55 grams for a 150-pound person, or the equivalent of an 8-ounce piece of meat or several cups of dry beans.
Ideally, Longo said, Americans would start following the example of the inhabitants in the small, southern Italian town of Molochilo, home to one of the highest rates of centenarians in the world. Their secret: For much of their lives, a large number of villagers maintained a low-protein, plant-based diet. In their older years, many ended up moving in with their children and eating higher-protein diets more common today. Whether on purpose or by happenstance, they seem to have hit on the ideal recipe for a long life.
“There is no harm,” Longo said, “in eating the way our grandparents used to eat.”

[Dantheman]

Rather than accusing your brother of willful disregard, consider the difference between "evidence" and anecdote. Many smokers live to their 90's without suffering lung cancer. Those are anecdotes. If you want to have a rational discussion with your brother, bring him evidence in the form of peer-reviewed studies of the effects of different diet choices on varoius aspects of health. If you just want to feel superior to him, keep doing what you're doing. You know, like those people whose identity is partly defined by what they eat and so they feel insulted when their dietary choices are questioned.

He's been trying the same shit with zero success for ten years and counting. That's pretty much the definition of willful disregard.

Uhhh Ohhh

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...0b9_story.html

Let's start at the top:

U.S. and Italian researchers tracked thousands of adults for nearly two decades

Translation: This was an observational study that found a correlation but cannot prove causation. That correlation is mostly likely heavily influenced by healthy user bias, and the study abstract makes no mention that the study even attempted to control for confounding lifestyle factors (they may have since I didn't read the full text, but it is usually mentioned in the abstract). Also, food intake was mostly likely "tracked" using food questionnaires, which are notoriously inaccurate. Finally, only people over 50 were evaluated, so the applicability to everyone under 50 is dubious at best.

Even as researchers warned of the health risks of high-protein diets in middle age, they said eating more protein actually could be a smart move for people over 65

Color me skeptical that animal protein will make you die of cancer at 55, but magically becomes healthy after 65.

with too much of that coming from animals rather than plant-based foods such as nuts, seeds and beans.

So complete, easily digestible protein sources are inferior to incomplete, poorly digestible sources? Mind = blown.

or the equivalent of an 8-ounce piece of meat or several cups of dry beans

Only several cups of dry beans (upwards of half a gallon cooked)? Hot damn, not only will I be able to meet my minimum daily (incomplete) protein intake, I'll produce enough flatulence to power my car. Win win!

Ideally, Longo said, Americans would start following the example of the inhabitants in the small, southern Italian town of Molochilo, home to one of the highest rates of centenarians in the world. Their secret: For much of their lives, a large number of villagers maintained a low-protein, plant-based diet. In their older years, many ended up moving in with their children and eating higher-protein diets more common today.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that a myriad of genetic and lifestyle factors probably have a lot more to do with this than their animal protein consumption.

“There is no harm,” Longo said, “in eating the way our grandparents used to eat.”

No argument there. Anything is better than the modern industrial diet.

[Spats]

Here's the study:
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism...5041311400062X

First, the CANCAR!!!!11!! headlines aren't the whole story. Even if you take their data seriously (which you shouldn't...see below), the high-protein group is far LESS likely to die of heart disease -- which kills a LOT more people than cancer.

Result: the odds ratios for medium and high protein for all-cause mortality under 65 are down to 1.3 and 1.7.

However, the odds ratios for medium and high protein for all-cause mortality OVER 65 are 0.79 and 0.73. Furthermore, the median age of death in the USA is currently 80 years (77.4 for men, 82.2 for women), so you're much more likely to die after age 65 than before it...

...and the headline should therefore be "Protein protects you against early death!"

However, the data itself is crap.

* As far as I can see from the "Results" section, the data is completely non-adjusted. That means: no adjustment for smoking, household income, educational level, or any of the myriad other factors which correlate strongly with mortality...
* ...including ANY DIETARY PATTERN DATA AT ALL. Refined sugar consumption? Fast food or processed food consumption? Fruit and vegetable consumption? Not adjusted for. Dantheman alluded to several possible issues, but I wrote an entire article about the problems with associative studies:
http://www.gnolls.org/2893/always-be...ally-tells-us/
* Furthermore, the data is based on Food Frequency Questionaires, which literally amount to "Tell me about what you ate over the last year." This data is known and verified to be complete crap: I discuss this in the article above.

A few illustrative problems with associations:

"I always see lots of firemen at fires: therefore, firemen cause fires and we should outlaw firemen." (Reverse causation)
"Playing basketball is strongly correlated with being tall. Therefore, everyone should play basketball so they grow taller." (Sampling bias)
"Sleeping with one’s shoes on is strongly correlated with waking up with a headache. Therefore, sleeping with one’s shoes on causes headaches." (Third factor: you sleep with your shoes on because you drank so heavily you forgot to take them off.)

[Spats]

And just to nail the coffin lid shut: here's another study that comes to the opposite conclusion, based on a different set of associative data.

Circulation. 2010 Jun 1;121(21):2271-83. Epub 2010 May 17.
Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D.
Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20479151

Red meat intake was not associated with CHD (n=4 studies; relative risk per 100-g serving per day=1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.23; P for heterogeneity=0.36) or diabetes mellitus (n=5; relative risk=1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.46;

So you can claim any numbers you want by choosing the appropriate data set and adjusting the numbers...or not adjusting them, depending on what you're trying to "prove".

[smitchell333]

The rationalization is strong with this one.

Scientific studies certainly can be flawed but I can't help but notice how vehemently you argue against a study that you can't have had time to really analyze in depth.

[Spats]

The rationalization is strong with this one.

Scientific studies certainly can be flawed but I can't help but notice how vehemently you argue against a study that you can't have had time to really analyze in depth.

Oh, shut up. I found, linked, and read the fulltext, which I guarantee that you did not do -- and neither did any of the journalists who uncritically repeated the headline.

Besides, as you would have seen if you actually read my article, I've spent quite a bit of time analyzing these sorts of studies...so it doesn't take me long to understand them. Nutrition is my field. I am a professional. It is my job to be able to quickly understand this sort of stuff.

Oh, did we mention that the lead author, Dr. Longo, is the founder and President of a company whose SOLE PRODUCTS are VEGETARIAN MEAL REPLACEMENTS? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
http://www.l-nutra.com/index.php/products/prolon

And here's another article on the subject, in case you're wondering:
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2014/03/a...ad-as-smoking/

From the article, quoting the study: "Using Cox Proportional Hazard models, we found that high and moderate protein consumption were positively associated with diabetes-related mortality, but not associated with all-cause, CVD [cardiovascular], or cancer mortality when subjects at all the ages above 50 were considered."

Yes, that means that there was NO NET INCREASE IN MORTALITY from high protein.

As I explained above, the only way they were able to come up with a headline was to split the group into little pieces until they found one subset of people who got more cancer on higher protein -- meanwhile ignoring the fact that the rest of the people got less cancer and less disease on higher protein, for no net effect.

Conclusion: the article is horseshit.

[shafty85]

I think you need to relax, son. Why get so worked up about how other people eat? Relax, brah.

[neufox47]

Not a comprehensive paleo study, but the largest "low-carb" study ever is going on right now in Mass at a local university, GF's mom is involved at the top as a consultant dietician. Basically they have a couple hundred people who are going to eat only the food provided them in the study for one year, no cheating, thanksgiving meals everything is provided and they eat a set number of calories based on their BW, activity level, etc. The group contains everything from a DIII 300lb Offensive Lineman to a 70 year professor who weighs 110lbs and is sedentary.

Study was split into 2 groups + some control groups. Main two groups are one group that will only eat 10% of their total calories from carbohydrates, I forget exactly how the 90% is split by fat and protein, I think its 60% fat 30% protein. The other group will follow the FDA recommendations for carbs and get 70% (I think its 70%, maybe 60?) of their calories from carbs. They are measuring all sorts of things throughout, BW, hunger, multiple blood tests, etc. It may be a large enough and extensive enough study to get the MD's and FDA to substantially alter the generally accepted food guidelines.

It's about time.

[Mazderati]

Basically they have a couple hundred people who are going to eat only the food provided them in the study for one year, no cheating, thanksgiving meals everything is provided and they eat a set number of calories based on their BW, activity level, etc.

A lofty goal, as diet and nutrition are notoriously difficult to measure. People typically eat what they want, when they want it, no matter how good their intentions.

[mud]

I think you need to relax, son. Why get so worked up about how other people eat? Relax, brah.

Bloggers gotta blog.

[digitaldeath]

Spats, you seem to be the expert

do you have any meal plan links...simple meal plans with minimal prep ( although eating healthy is prob all prep work)

nothing more stressful and time wasting than sourcing and planning and preparing food for healthy eating

i already eat quite healthy but prob dont eat enough! its frequently hard to get a balanced meal

[systemoverblow'd]

Spats, you seem to be the expert

do you have any meal plan links...simple meal plans with minimal prep ( although eating healthy is prob all prep work)

nothing more stressful and time wasting than sourcing and planning and preparing food for healthy eating

i already eat quite healthy but prob dont eat enough! its frequently hard to get a balanced meal

It takes me an hour at most on Sunday making my lunches for the work week. It takes me about :30 - 1 hour every night to cook healthy dinner for myself. And while I'm doing that I'm checking my email, watching the tube, doing other chores, etc. Buy and cook in bulk. Baking a family pack of chicken breasts, a couple bags of spinach, a couple heads of broccoli and assorted veggies and I have monster salads for the week in 30 minutes, labeled in their tuperware ready to go to work. I put the dressing on at work.

Keep frozen veggies in our freezer. If you don't cook enough, you will probably waste fresh stuff. Buying bulk meat and freezing it means you always have a protein waiting. When you grab your lunch in the morning, take a piece out of the freezer and put it in the fridge to defrost for when you get home to cook. That and your frozen veggies and whatever else you like and you are on your way to eating a balanced meal in a matter of minutes. I can have a rib eye, broccoli and black beans (yes legumes spats ) on my plate in less than 10 minutes.

It isn't rocket science. Keep some extra salad fixings around as well. If you know how to cook at all, you shouldn't need specific recipes, you should know what you like and figure out something that fits.

[digitaldeath]

^^^ you're like a machine, such discipline

so i need to spend money on tupperware!

any concerns with BPAs and synthetic estrogen with your tupperware?

and what do you prepare for lunch? spinach salads?

black beans are where its at!


--- i was doing spinach in my protien shakes, tasted great nomatter how much you added... ive recently upgraded to KALE - so nasty but so powerful

[neufox47]

A lofty goal, as diet and nutrition are notoriously difficult to measure. People typically eat what they want, when they want it, no matter how good their intentions.

Well they are literally providing them with all the meals, either through the cafeteria where they normally go to eat or as take home prepared meals.

[criscam]

Spats, you seem to be the expert

do you have any meal plan links...simple meal plans with minimal prep ( although eating healthy is prob all prep work)

nothing more stressful and time wasting than sourcing and planning and preparing food for healthy eating

i already eat quite healthy but prob dont eat enough! its frequently hard to get a balanced meal

to add to system's comments...
my breakfast is a smoothie i've made the night before (2 minute prep) plus a banana or some hard boiled eggs (usually prepped the night before). not really a big breakfast eater except on the wknds.
my lunch is almost always leftovers from the night (or two) before. we sometime jsut double recipes to make sure we have leftovers.
wife has been doing alot of the dinners lately but we picked up a "quick and easy" paleo recipe book and use those recipes for the nights when we're a little short on time. wife has been doing a lot of slow cooker meals lately and usually preps everything the night before and sets on low for the next night.
if you can do a little planning/shopping early in the week (sunday afternoon?) and maybe have some frozen leftovers (chili, soup, etc) in the freezer at all times for "emergency's", it shouldn't be too bad.

[systemoverblow'd]

^^^ you're like a machine, such discipline

so i need to spend money on tupperware!

any concerns with BPAs and synthetic estrogen with your tupperware?

and what do you prepare for lunch? spinach salads?

black beans are where its at!


--- i was doing spinach in my protien shakes, tasted great nomatter how much you added... ive recently upgraded to KALE - so nasty but so powerful

I buy cheap tupperware. I don't give a crap about that other shit.

Attached is a screen grab of my lunch today. You can bake chix breasts on sunday night and create salads and they will last until friday lunchtime in tupperware..

I put kale in my green smoothies sometimes. I'm more of a spinach fan personally. I go through 3-4 9oz bags a week.

Oh yeah, and I buy whey isolate in bulk too

[Mazderati]

Well they are literally providing them with all the meals, either through the cafeteria where they normally go to eat or as take home prepared meals.

Yeah, you can only do what you can do. A study like that is certainly better than nothing.

[digitaldeath]

cant see your lunch computer systems expert!

spinach way better but Kale way better for you

[Spats]

I think you need to relax, son. Why get so worked up about how other people eat? Relax, brah.

People can eat whatever they want. Not my business or my problem. Accusing me of ignorance, OTOH, doesn't fly.

neufox: That'll be interesting for sure! I think the quality of the food matters more than the macros: you can do a shitty low-carb diet with lots of peanut butter and "low-carb" tortillas, and a reasonably good high-carb diet if most of your carbs come from tubers and veggies, not grains. However, assuming equal diet quality, it's almost always going to be easier to stick to lower-carb vs. higher-carb...and the default low-carb diet is less shitty than the default high-carb diet since most carby foods are bread-based junk.

[Gripen]

now you can advertise your new fad diet while still being Enduro as Fuck.