Paleo Diet Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2014, 08:23 PM
RE: Paleo Diet Debunked
(12-06-2014 08:21 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(12-06-2014 06:39 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes.

I don't think that's right. It's more about the insulin response to the calories. At least for insulin-resistant and type 2 diabetics.

That's true; in those cases the baseline assumption for efficiency (how incoming food energy is used) doesn't apply.

The general principle holds - the calories captured by your metabolism versus the calories expended by your activity.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
12-06-2014, 08:42 PM
RE: Paleo Diet Debunked
(12-06-2014 08:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-06-2014 08:06 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Oh I do work out and that is why the calorie thing is bs to me. If you burn more calories than you eat no matter how much you eat why worry about it? The calorie thing works best if someone is trying to lose weight without working out(it can both but eating only a certain amount of things a day based on how much calories it has sucks)

It's grade school math, friend. Which number is bigger? Energy is conserved. Catabolysis releases free energy. Either it becomes (micro or macroscopic) kinetic energy, or it becomes chemical potential energy.

You've said plenty of reasonable things about balanced and unprocessed diets. That has literally nothing to do with whatever fad shit is labelled "paleo". Lose the buzzword. It's not doing you any favours.

Fad really? Why do you think I pointed out why potatoes are better than grains. Thee article itself is saying paleo is bad because ancient humans ate grains and the name. If that is the only real problem, than I don't see why the diet is bad. What foods are wrong in paleo? Meats? Fruits? Veggies? Olive oil? Coconut? Potatoes? Chocolate? Personally I don't care what the name is. I don't care if it was called lfdohiosdjiohsdf, if it works it works.

Next lets go to the word fad.

something (such as an interest or fashion) that is very popular for a short time

an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived and without basis in the object's qualities; a craze

Now those are two definitions. The first one can be used for this, however it can be used for almost anything.

The second one is much much better. The key part is Without basis. Basis in short means with reason.

Now you said my post were reasonable. Why? Because like dom says that is what the diet is all about, picking those with benefits over those with benefits and down falls. Like fruits and veggies beat grains in health, so what is the point of me eating grains if I have those? Meat and legumes may share the same amount of protein but lugumes have more downfalls. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1115436/

Hell soy can even effect the levels of semen

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content.../2584.full

So let see would I rather eliminate wheat and legumes, or meats and vegetables? So far meats and veggies sound better.

Now you can say well there is no point of deleting them because they can still have health benefits. I say it does. Why would I eat something that can harm me while it is supposed to benefit me? Why not have something that benefits me only? That is the point of the diet, and if only the name bothers, tell me what you would call it then?

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2014, 08:50 PM
RE: Paleo Diet Debunked
(12-06-2014 08:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-06-2014 07:25 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  The most healthy? Maybe the whole grain part, but pasta hell nah. Where does this grain the most healthy come from? You mean rice?

Let us go over the benefits of both oats and potatoes.

Oats:
OATS MAY REDUCE ASTHMA RISK IN CHILDREN

OATS MAY BOOST NUTRITION PROFILE OF GLUTEN-FREE DIETS

OATS INCREASE APPETITE-CONTROL HORMONES

OAT BETA GLUCANS IMPROVE IMMUNE SYSTEM DEFENSES

OATS HELP CUT THE USE OF LAXATIVES

OATS MAY HELP REDUCE THE RISK OF TYPE 2 DIABETES

OATS MAY IMPROVE INSULIN SENSITIVITY

OATS LOWER BAD CHOLESTEROL

OATS HELP CONTROL BLOOD PRESSURE

DIGESTION
http://wholegrainscouncil.org/whole-grai...ts-of-oats


Potatoes:

Weight Gain(muscle)

Helps with Digestion

Helps with Skin Care

Helps with Scurvy

Helps with Rheumatism

Helps with Inflammation

Helps with Cancer Prevention

Helps with High Blood Pressure

Helps with Heart Diseases

Helps with Brain Function

Helps with Kidney Stones

Helps with Diarrhea

http://www.organicfacts.net/health-benef...otato.html

So far the potato seems better.

Guy?

Those are not competent sources.
(especially the latter)

Learn to skepticism. I know you're personally attached to this one, but still.

So you have the source debunking my claim above about the health benefits of both showing that whole grains have more than potatoes.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2014, 09:16 PM
RE: Paleo Diet Debunked
(12-06-2014 08:50 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(12-06-2014 08:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Guy?

Those are not competent sources.
(especially the latter)

Learn to skepticism. I know you're personally attached to this one, but still.

So you have the source debunking my claim above about the health benefits of both showing that whole grains have more than potatoes.

Fuck you been smokin' walrus willis? White potatoes spike the fuck outta of my sugars to >200mg/dl postprandials which lasts for 4 or more hours. Yeah, I don't eat white potatoes. There are many whole grains which don't spike my sugars at all as long as they are accompanied with sufficient fiber and fat. Diets are bullshit snake-oil, knowing what you're eating is priceless.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
12-06-2014, 09:36 PM
RE: Paleo Diet Debunked
(12-06-2014 08:42 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Fad really? Why do you think I pointed out why potatoes are better than grains.

Ah. The problem with that is that "grain" is incredibly broad - so broad as to be useless in terms of specific nutrition. Any category including both white bread and quinoa is not helpful.

So there's that.

(12-06-2014 08:42 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Thee article itself is saying paleo is bad because ancient humans ate grains and the name. If that is the only real problem, than I don't see why the diet is bad.

Anything good in it is not unique; anything unique in it is not good.

Why cling to the label?

(12-06-2014 08:42 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  What foods are wrong in paleo? Meats? Fruits? Veggies? Olive oil? Coconut? Potatoes? Chocolate? Personally I don't care what the name is. I don't care if it was called lfdohiosdjiohsdf, if it works it works.

So, disregarding the foundational premise - that it is either beneficial or even possible to eat as our distant ancestors did - what's left is okay.

Fair enough. So what?

(12-06-2014 08:42 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Next lets go to the word fad.

something (such as an interest or fashion) that is very popular for a short time

an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived and without basis in the object's qualities; a craze

Now those are two definitions. The first one can be used for this, however it can be used for almost anything.

The second one is much much better. The key part is Without basis. Basis in short means with reason.

Indeed. Like the foundational premise of "paleo" diets. Both uses are apt.

(12-06-2014 08:42 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Now you said my post were reasonable.

Some parts, yes. A distinction not to be elided.

(12-06-2014 08:42 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Why? Because like dom says that is what the diet is all about, picking those with benefits over those with benefits and down falls.

No, that's not what a fad diet is about.

That's what good nutrition is about. There's a wholly substantial difference.

(12-06-2014 08:42 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Like fruits and veggies beat grains in health, so what is the point of me eating grains if I have those?

Grains are the best source of food energy available to us. That's ten thousand years of selective breeding in action.

If you take in more energy than you expend, you will gain weight. The sun also rises.

(12-06-2014 08:42 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Meat and legumes may share the same amount of protein but lugumes have more downfalls. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1115436/

Hell soy can even effect the levels of semen

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content.../2584.full

Funny; I don't remember advocating cjlr's patented all-soy diet...

(12-06-2014 08:42 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  So let see would I rather eliminate wheat and legumes, or meats and vegetables? So far meats and veggies sound better.

Why eliminate anything?

(12-06-2014 08:42 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Now you can say well there is no point of deleting them because they can still have health benefits. I say it does. Why would I eat something that can harm me while it is supposed to benefit me? Why not have something that benefits me only? That is the point of the diet, and if only the name bothers, tell me what you would call it then?

It's not a matter of a bad name - it's a matter of totally disregarding the foundational premise that goes with that name.

You're not even following the strictures of the so-called diet. Why on this good Earth are you nonetheless so attached to the stupid name?

I don't get it.
(well; I do - cognitive bias and defensiveness, but I'd've figured you for better introspection)

(12-06-2014 08:50 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(12-06-2014 08:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Guy?

Those are not competent sources.
(especially the latter)

Learn to skepticism. I know you're personally attached to this one, but still.

So you have the source debunking my claim above about the health benefits of both showing that whole grains have more than potatoes.

Fatuity doesn't become you.

The claims about potatoes were not comparative where substantiated. They merely referred to the presence, in potatoes, of certain trace compounds and vitamins. These are healthy; once again, the sun also rises.

As you, yourself note, many similar and comparable compounds and effects are demonstrable in oats.

You then - based on what, subjective feels? - say merely that one "seems" better to you.

So be it; that's your prerogative.

I fail to see where "according to my subjective personal feels, I think potatoes are slightly healthier than oats, therefore I will exclusively eat the former" is in any way rational. But, knock yourself out.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2014, 10:49 PM
RE: Paleo Diet Debunked
(12-06-2014 09:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Ah. The problem with that is that "grain" is incredibly broad - so broad as to be useless in terms of specific nutrition. Any category including both white bread and quinoa is not helpful.

So there's that.

The grain I am talking about is whole grain.

"Whole grains or foods made from them contain all the essential parts and naturally-occurring nutrients of the entire grain seed in their original proportions. If the grain has been processed (e.g., cracked, crushed, rolled, extruded, and/or cooked), the food product should deliver the same rich balance of nutrients that are found in the original grain seed."
http://wholegrainscouncil.org/whole-grai...ole-grains

So here are the grains I am talking about. And fruits and vegetables beat whole grains anyday.

(12-06-2014 09:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Anything good in it is not unique; anything unique in it is not good.

Why cling to the label?
Because that is what it is called. As I said I don't care about the name as long as it works. The name probably originated not by the foods we ate but the catogories they came in. For example meat, roots, fruits, vegetables, and eggs where eaten by paleolithic man. Today we have chicken(meat),apples(fruit), broccoli(vegetables),potatoes(roots), and eggs.

You can argue that they found that grain was eaten by prehistoric man but there is:

A:We don't know if it was in there normal diet or that one tried grain because it was desperatly hungry.

B:Even though the first eating of grain is pushed back to 30,000 years, Humans still have been grain free for over a million. To add ancient humans have yet to have been found eating beans or soy(which is what I really don't like)

C: Remember despite the grain discovery that came out in 2013, the diet started in 1985.
Because that is its name? What would you call it? Because I don't like grains nor soy.

(12-06-2014 09:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  So, disregarding the foundational premise - that it is either beneficial or even possible to eat as our distant ancestors did - what's left is okay.

Fair enough. So what?

So what is wrong with it is my question. The article sits as if the diet is bad, but then it turns out all that is in it is good for you. Excluding grains and legumes does not matter because meat a fruit can provide what they have but much, much better.

(12-06-2014 09:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed. Like the foundational premise of "paleo" diets. Both uses are apt.

Really how so? The food is healthy, so what makes it a fad because it is not what are ancestor directly ate(even though the diet goes for the current catogorize of what the prehistoric human ate.) Is it because you are supposed to lose weight fast while doing it? Well no that is not true. I tried that before and it took it down slow. Every diet that is good will help you lose weight fast if you exercise as well.



(12-06-2014 09:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Some parts, yes. A distinction not to be elided.


This was my bad, sorry broConfused


(12-06-2014 09:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No, that's not what a fad diet is about.

That's what good nutrition is about. There's a wholly substantial difference.

So are you saying that it has good nutrition yet it is a fad? If so how does that work? As I stressed before if it is the name, remember the diet is not copying the cavem
ans exact diet, but copying the categories of food that it ate. Also the diet never works as a get slim quick thing, it only works fast when you exercise intensely(like every other diet that is considered non-fad)

(12-06-2014 09:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Grains are the best source of food energy available to us. That's ten thousand years of selective breeding in action.

Really it is? I wonder where I saw that before, and I wonder why? Also it is not. And apple is much better than a bowl of brown rice.
(12-06-2014 09:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If you take in more energy than you expend, you will gain weight. The sun also rises.
This is true.


(12-06-2014 09:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Funny; I don't remember advocating cjlr's patented all-soy diet...

You seem to have missed my point.

My point was to show how bad soy is compared to meat, and that I don't ever need soy. I mean soy does more damage than meat, so why eat soy at all when you have meat to eat?


(12-06-2014 09:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Why eliminate anything?

My question is why the hell wouldn't I? Why would I get my source of protein from something that may lower my semen count? Why not just eat something that will do no harm whatsoever.

(12-06-2014 09:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's not a matter of a bad name - it's a matter of totally disregarding the foundational premise that goes with that name.

You're not even following the strictures of the so-called diet. Why on this good Earth are you nonetheless so attached to the stupid name?

I don't get it.
(well; I do - cognitive bias and defensiveness, but I'd've figured you for better introspection)

What foundational premise? That fact that we eat most of the same Categories of what ancient humans ate is what I am getting at.

Also I don't care about the name. Like I said before the name is really irrelevant, it is about the diet itself. If it works it works, if there is a better name come up with one, other wise what other name would work?

P.S I am trying to explain that the article did not debunk anything. I even said in the beginning that all diets have there ups and downs.

(12-06-2014 09:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Fatuity doesn't become you.

The claims about potatoes were not comparative where substantiated. They merely referred to the presence, in potatoes, of certain trace compounds and vitamins. These are healthy; once again, the sun also rises.

As you, yourself note, many similar and comparable compounds and effects are demonstrable in oats.

You then - based on what, subjective feels? - say merely that one "seems" better to you.

So be it; that's your prerogative.

I fail to see where "according to my subjective personal feels, I think potatoes are slightly healthier than oats, therefore I will exclusively eat the former" is in any way rational. But, knock yourself out.

You missed my point again bro. I put those together to compare them. If you look back rev said whole grain is the best choice for carbs. I listed those because I can get more out of the potato than the carb. If it was vice versa then it is vice versa. The point was not feels, but comparing both the benefits to see which one had more, and the potato won out. This was to show rev that potatoes were a better carb than whole grain.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2014, 03:44 AM
RE: Paleo Diet Debunked
Its been proven time and again, high protein, low sugar diets seem to have the best outcomes. Its not really about carbs or fats.

The studies I have read strongly suggest that plant based proteins as opposed to animal based proteins are better, and associated with lower instances of all cause mortality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2014, 04:30 AM
RE: Paleo Diet Debunked
(13-06-2014 03:44 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Its been proven time and again, high protein, low sugar diets seem to have the best outcomes. Its not really about carbs or fats.

The studies I have read strongly suggest that plant based proteins as opposed to animal based proteins are better, and associated with lower instances of all cause mortality.

Well no.

The only real source of protein from plants come from beans,nuts, and seeds.

However those still don't beat meat.

1: meat made us human

http://www.livescience.com/23671-eating-...human.html

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge...-103874273

and stonetools

2: Meat has more protein than nuts. In fact turkey breast is said to have the most protein.

http://www.healthaliciousness.com/articl...rotein.php

3: Between the two groups of those who choose plant protein over meat, tend to have protein deficiencies.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/60597-...rian-diet/

http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet-veganbaby.html

And no I do not say all plant eaters do, but I have yet to seem omnivores fall as much.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2014, 10:57 AM
RE: Paleo Diet Debunked
(13-06-2014 04:30 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(13-06-2014 03:44 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Its been proven time and again, high protein, low sugar diets seem to have the best outcomes. Its not really about carbs or fats.

The studies I have read strongly suggest that plant based proteins as opposed to animal based proteins are better, and associated with lower instances of all cause mortality.

Well no.

The only real source of protein from plants come from beans,nuts, and seeds.

However those still don't beat meat.

1: meat made us human

http://www.livescience.com/23671-eating-...human.html

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge...-103874273

and stonetools

2: Meat has more protein than nuts. In fact turkey breast is said to have the most protein.

http://www.healthaliciousness.com/articl...rotein.php

3: Between the two groups of those who choose plant protein over meat, tend to have protein deficiencies.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/60597-...rian-diet/

http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet-veganbaby.html

And no I do not say all plant eaters do, but I have yet to seem omnivores fall as much.

Well first off I have no plans to get on my vegan soapbox. Just talking about nutrition from a scientific standpoint. The only point I am trying to make is that if you eat more vegetables you will probably live longer.

Meat is a very dense source of protein. It is possible to get all of your proteins from vegetables though, with a proper diet. Beans, seeds, legumes, and wheat are all good sources. People who derive most or all of their proteins from vegetables live a lot longer as compared to people who eat a normal diet. Interestingly enough people on the atkins diet on average live shorter lives than regular folks. Not all that surprising though because carbs are important and you need balance in your diet for optimal health.

So just to be clear, my message is people should eat more vegetable proteins. That is one critic I have of the paleo diet, it is lacking in vegetable proteins and it cuts out a lot of nutritious foods, all without any kind of scientific or nutritional basis. Just the dogmatic assertion that if our paleo ancestors did it so should we.

The biggest killer of people seems to be simple sugars. So cutting out starchy foods, processed grain, sugary foods, most anything with corn syrup as an additive, and soda pop seem to be perhaps the #1 thing you can do to improve your health and increase your lifespan.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2014, 11:10 AM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2014 12:35 PM by Metazoa Zeke.)
RE: Paleo Diet Debunked
(13-06-2014 10:57 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(13-06-2014 04:30 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Well no.

The only real source of protein from plants come from beans,nuts, and seeds.

However those still don't beat meat.

1: meat made us human

http://www.livescience.com/23671-eating-...human.html

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge...-103874273

and stonetools

2: Meat has more protein than nuts. In fact turkey breast is said to have the most protein.

http://www.healthaliciousness.com/articl...rotein.php

3: Between the two groups of those who choose plant protein over meat, tend to have protein deficiencies.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/60597-...rian-diet/

http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet-veganbaby.html

And no I do not say all plant eaters do, but I have yet to seem omnivores fall as much.

Well first off I have no plans to get on my vegan soapbox. Just talking about nutrition from a scientific standpoint. The only point I am trying to make is that if you eat more vegetables you will probably live longer.

Meat is a very dense source of protein. It is possible to get all of your proteins from vegetables though, with a proper diet. Beans, seeds, legumes, and wheat are all good sources. People who derive most or all of their proteins from vegetables live a lot longer as compared to people who eat a normal diet. Interestingly enough people on the atkins diet on average live shorter lives than regular folks. Not all that surprising though because carbs are important and you need balance in your diet for optimal health.

So just to be clear, my message is people should eat more vegetable proteins. That is one critic I have of the paleo diet, it is lacking in vegetable proteins and it cuts out a lot of nutritious foods, all without any kind of scientific or nutritional basis. Just the dogmatic assertion that if our paleo ancestors did it so should we.

The biggest killer of people seems to be simple sugars. So cutting out starchy foods, processed grain, sugary foods, most anything with corn syrup as an additive, and soda pop seem to be perhaps the #1 thing you can do to improve your health and increase your lifespan.

Good, and I agree. Refined sugars are bad. And besides if I hit on vegans I may hit myself.

Edit: All most plants have protein but also phytic acid. Seeds and nuts seem to be the only one. Plus meat is the only source of protein I can eat.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: