Paleo 101: How and why you should eat like a Caveman

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
T

The Master

Bronze Squire
2,084
2
Behemoth_sl said:
Didn't paleolithic humans only live to be 40 tops? I doubt they went around thinking hey! look at those red berries I've never seen before let me eat a whole bunch and hope I don't die! I bet it went more like this..... Son, we only eat this, this, and this because we know it won't immediately kill us. So while the truth might be humans ate this way for a majority of our time on Earth it doesn't mean newer foods are inherently bad. Obesity is an epidemic of the mind more than it is anything. There exist zero people on earth who would remain obese if they burned a proportional amount of calories as they intake. There have been several people who copied the "Super Size Me" diet but exercised enough to burn off what they ate and had no weight gain or ill effects.
Click to expand...
Actually skeletal evidence would suggest that the invention of agriculture, which is when we started eating grains as a primary part of our diet, drastically shortened lifespans. From something like 50-60 to late 30s at most. Correlation is not causation though, the greater population density also led to more disease. Anthropologists go back and forth over what caused the difference. However remains from that period also have a great deal more micro-fractures, implying much weaker bones and poorer nutrition then what hunter/gather societies had. But, again, that could be attributed to other causes.
 
D

Duppin_sl

shitlord
3,785
3
Tuco_sl said:
See I think you're stretching here. The bulk of the paleolithic diet is 'eat like we evolved to eat' which excludes a lot more than large consumption of sugar and refined foods. Call it a natural or organic diet, call it a good diet, call it what you want, but the paleolithic title demands more than just cutting out refined foods and sugar.
Click to expand...
It also makes the assumption that human evolution flat-out stopped at an extremely early point in the species' history.
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
46,765
99,848
The Master_sl said:
Actually skeletal evidence would suggest that the invention of agriculture, which is when we started eating grains as a primary part of our diet, drastically shortened lifespans. From something like 50-60 to late 30s at most. Correlation is not causation though, the greater population density also led to more disease. Anthropologists go back and forth over what caused the difference. However remains from that period also have a great deal more micro-fractures, implying much weaker bones and poorer nutrition then what hunter/gather societies had. But, again, that could be attributed to other causes.
Click to expand...
The hell? Average human life span in hunter gatherer times was 50-60 years old? Lol
 
Convo

Convo

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,775
640
The Master_sl said:
Actually skeletal evidence would suggest that the invention of agriculture, which is when we started eating grains as a primary part of our diet, drastically shortened lifespans. From something like 50-60 to late 30s at most. Correlation is not causation though, the greater population density also led to more disease. Anthropologists go back and forth over what caused the difference. However remains from that period also have a great deal more micro-fractures, implying much weaker bones and poorer nutrition then what hunter/gather societies had. But, again, that could be attributed to other causes.
Click to expand...
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...-whole-grains/
 
Aychamo BanBan

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
Tuco_sl said:
See I think you're stretching here. The bulk of the paleolithic diet is 'eat like we evolved to eat' which excludes a lot more than large consumption of sugar and refined foods. Call it a natural or organic diet, call it a good diet, call it what you want, but the paleolithic title demands more than just cutting out refined foods and sugar.
Click to expand...
It does seem like Dashel interprets the diets philosophy different on a daily basis to support whatever point he's failing to make in a post.
 
A

arkktheseaotter_sl

shitlord
406
0
aychamo_aycono_sl said:
It does seem like Dashel interprets the diets philosophy different on a daily basis to support whatever point he's failing to make in a post.
Click to expand...
This.

It's like me starting a thread and writing a novel on how I would only buy Japanese cars and explaining how they are the best, and stating why American cars are a waste of money. Then 19 pages later I'm going, "Although, the Ford Focus is a decent car," and at 28 pages were at "You know, I decided I'm going to buy a Chevrolet Volt but I'm going to listen to Japanese music and wear a gi while I drive it."

Worst poster of all time. I could talk him into sending me money to fund pet insurance for my dog.
 
Aychamo BanBan

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
ROFL! Agree!
smile.png
At least he bought his license plate frame in China for his CHevy.
 
Dashel

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,835
2,931
Tuco_sl said:
See I think you're stretching here. The bulk of the paleolithic diet is 'eat like we evolved to eat' which excludes a lot more than large consumption of sugar and refined foods. Call it a natural or organic diet, call it a good diet, call it what you want, but the paleolithic title demands more than just cutting out refined foods and sugar.
Click to expand...
I'd still say it's by far the bulk. Grains are the other big one apart from sugar and most of the grains I eat are refined and have sugar: bread, cereal, bagels, pizza, pasta. Then you come to dairy which a lot of people say you can have in moderation if your body handles it ok.

Yes eat like we evolved to eat. So anything we have been eating for the majority of human history is fine: meat, fish, fowl, berries, nuts, fruits, vegetables, roots etc etc. But then in addition to that things are taken on a case by case basis. So wheat all the paleo people say is the devil, but rice a lot of people think is fine in moderation. Same with dairy.

And then lets not ignore what we are comparing it to, the US recommended diet which is always asking us to eat less fat which by default means eat more carbs. That has coincided with more obesity and greater incidence of diabetes and heart disease.
 
Dashel

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,835
2,931
^ I would say it definitely can work, but so can a lot of different approaches. The question is how ideal is it. Having tried it now myself I can say I still feel the same way about the diet. The one thing it made me realize was how shitty things like bread are for me. Just regular slices of bread or rolls or bagels. Doesnt matter if it's whole grain or not.

I also notice that "WHOLE GRAIN!!!!" is on everything now just the way "LOW FAT!!!!" was on everything a few years back. So is a whole wheat ritz cracker good for me? Is whole grain sliced bread healthy and white bread isnt? Meh.



Convo_sl said:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...-whole-grains/
Click to expand...

Going back to this one, all the references to the Nurses Study is from a wide ranging study that has drawn some very mistaken conclusions in the past. Not that it's wrong, but it's also not proof.

I would say read this:

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.p...ading-studies/

Article_sl said:
Then a major observational study gave the estrogen theory some real traction. For 15 years, the Harvard Nurses Health Study had been tracking the diets, health habits and disease rates of more than 120,000 nurses. When researchers pored over the mountains of data produced by that study, they found a startling statistic: women who took estrogen had a 40% lower rate of heart disease than women who didn't. And women who continued taking estrogen were less likely to suffer a heart attack than women who took it for awhile and then stopped.

You can imagine the research papers and the headlines that resulted. There calls among researchers and doctors alike to start prescribing estrogen to all post-menopausal women who had risk factors for heart disease. More cautious researchers called for a controlled clinical trial before estrogen was given out like heart-healthy candy, and were criticized for it. How could they, in good conscience, deny this obvious wonder drug to millions of women while waiting for long clinical trials to play out?

A pharmaceutical company, Wyeth-Ayerst, eventually funded the clinical trials - hoping, of course, that estrogen would be shown to prevent heart disease. More than 16,000 women were randomized and enrolled in the study. For five years, half received estrogen and half received a placebo.

The results were hardly what Wyeth-Ayerst had expected: The women taking estrogen developed heart disease at a higher rate - 30% higher, in fact. They were also more likely to suffer a stroke . another cardiovascular disease. Later clinical trials confirmed the bad news.

The experts were flabbergasted. The statistical correlation in the Harvard Nurses Study couldn't have been more convincing: women who took estrogen were far less likely to have a heart attack. And it couldn't have been fluke - there were too many subjects involved.

So what happened? Nobody can say for sure, but some researchers at the time offered an explanation that makes perfect sense: the women in the Harvard study who took estrogen were more concerned about their health. That's why they took a hormone replacement in the first place.

In other words, estrogen didn't create healthy nurses, but health-conscious nurses did take estrogen. Meanwhile, the health-conscious nurses were less likely to develop heart disease . for any number of reasons.
Click to expand...
 
Convo

Convo

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,775
640
Ossoi_sl said:
I don't know why the Paleo vs Non Paleo believers debate is still going, after all I posted proof it works about 15 pages ago, funny how nobody even attempted to debunk it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...insurance.html
Click to expand...
I wasn't under the impression people were debating if it works or not.. I think they are debating how healthy it is long term to eat saturated fats. Like red meat all the time...that article didnt really prove anything. He could of just as easily stuck to a 100 other workout programs that add a meal regiment. If he reduces his calories enough and works out he will lose weight. It's pretty simple. Best shape I've ever been in was when I ate 3 low fat yogurts, a salad and protien shakes everyday with exercise. Second best was when I did body for life and ate 6 meals a day with a lean protien, healthy fat, carbs(whole grains,fruit, veggies.) both times I reduced calories and worked out.. the article didnt mention any blood test with his cholesterol and such. Being thin doesnt= healthy. Me personally.. I can't eat high fat. My genes just can't hang and my cholesterol would be thru the roof. I know because I recently tried:-(
 
Convo

Convo

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,775
640
@Dashel- what part would you say is possibly not true?

The link I provided on whole grains has numerous scientific studies cited.
 
Dashel

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,835
2,931
Another thing is, no matter what diet you go on at first you'll probably have success. Just going on the diet indicates you're trying to eat better, you'll probably restrict calories and it will work. Long term though diets do not work because you go back to eating how you were and the same thing happens again.
 
Dashel

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,835
2,931
Convo_sl said:
@Dashel- what part would you say is possibly not true?

The link I provided on whole grains has numerous scientific studies cited.
Click to expand...
Sorry, specifically the references to the Nurses Study:

More recent findings from this study (the Nurses' Health Studies I and II) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study suggest that swapping whole grains for white rice could help lower diabetes risk: Researchers found that women and men who ate the most white rice-five or more servings a week-had a 17 percent higher risk of diabetes than those who ate white rice less than one time a month. Those who ate the most brown rice-two or more servings a week-had an 11 percent lower risk of diabetes than those who rarely ate brown rice. Researchers estimate that swapping whole grains in place of even some white rice could lower diabetes risk by 36 percent. (4)
Click to expand...
In the Harvard-based Nurses' Health Study, women who ate 2 to 3 servings of whole-grain products (mostly bread and breakfast cereals) each day were 30 percent less likely to have a heart attack or die from heart disease over a 10-year period than women who ate less than 1 serving per week.
Click to expand...
 
Dashel

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,835
2,931
arkktheseaotter_sl said:
Say, over a 3 week period?
Click to expand...
Yup. I'm clearly calorie restricting on this compared to what I ate before, but I'm not going hungry. You keep thinking you're going to trip me up, clearly you didnt read the OP. Read "Why should I try this", use google for the big words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.