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!

The Master

Bronze Squire
2,084
2
I don't know how you manage to type so much while saying so little. Or just repeating what you said earlier. Are you going to address any of the points brought up after that quote?

BTW, nothing proven scientifically is THE reason to bash something.

Paragraphs, please!
Has evidence supporting it, scientists who specialize in the field think it is a valid theory, and it has not been scientifically disproven isthereason not to bash it, actually. If I am recapping points it is because people are repeating things that are clearly contradicted by those points because they are ignoring data in favor of their preconceived notions.
 

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,835
2,931
Article_sl said:
The development of an alternative began with French chemist Michel Eug?ne Chevreul?s discovery of margaric acid in 1813. Another French chemist, Hippolyte M?ge-Mouri?s, invented oleomargarine, which became shortened to margarine in 1869. Margarine is made of vegetable fats and was thought to be lower in cholesterol and saturated fats than animal products.
And again the French eat more butter and saturated fat but have less incidence of heart disease than the US.

Another:http://www.bmj.com/press-releases/20...sease-guidance

Article_sl said:
Study raises questions about dietary fats and heart disease guidance
Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - 10:38

Dietary advice about fats and the risk of heart disease is called into question on bmj.com today as a clinical trial shows that replacing saturated animal fats with omega-6 polyunsaturated vegetable fats is linked to an increased risk of death among patients with heart disease.

The researchers say their findings could have important implications for worldwide dietary recommendations.

Advice to substitute vegetable oils rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) for animal fats rich in saturated fats to help reduce the risk of heart disease has been a cornerstone of dietary guidelines for the past half century. The most common dietary PUFA in Western diets is omega-6 linoleic acid (n-6 LA for short).
"Linked".... meaning you can find a study linking almost anything to anything. So just because this happens to fit what I'm doing currently I dont put any more faith in this one. People here seems to want MOAR SIENSE! to justify this though, to the point of plotting the life spans of hunter gatherers. I debated it for a while too since cutting grains seemed pretty extreme but at the end of the day I just decided to try it. So far it is working exactly as advertised. Anecdotally I personally know a handful of people doing it currently and they all report similar results. The other thread I have going has a bunch of people doing it, some for quite a while now, and they all support it. Then again I'm sure there are people who have tried it and hated it.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,877
82,441
Plotting the lives of HGs is interesting but I don't know how important I'd say it is for diet determination.
 

Deathwing

<Bronze Donator>
16,938
7,951
Has evidence supporting it, scientists who specialize in the field think it is a valid theory, and it has not been scientifically disproven isthereason not to bash it, actually. If I am recapping points it is because people are repeating things that are clearly contradicted by those points because they are ignoring data in favor of their preconceived notions.
No, it doesn't have any evidence supporting it. At least not any that you've shown us. As I, and Ancient, have repeatedly tried to point out, there are far too many variables, availability of grain being one, between HG and agricultural societies for anyone to point to a specific cause. Your evidence is a non-entity, it doesn't enter into this discussion at all.

It IS a valid theory. One that won't be proven until you take a HG society and replace some of their member's diets with grains. Until then, it's a nice supposition and it doesn't bear discussion here. Especially when you look at how the infant mortality rate of HG societies can skew the data of post 45 age expectancy. It's definitely not a foil to the Havard study, as you've been trying to play it against Convo.

So until you give us some valid scientific proof, yes, I'll bash your paleo diet.
 

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,835
2,931
Here's some follow up material from the guy who made the Fathead documentary. Which by the way if you are even remotely interested in this, watch that. It's free on Netflix. Also catch the Perfect Human Diet, which I had to pay a couple of bucks to watch on Amazon Prime.

 

The Master

Bronze Squire
2,084
2
No, it doesn't have any evidence supporting it. At least not any that you've shown us. As I, and Ancient, have repeatedly tried to point out, there are far too many variables, availability of grain being one, between HG and agricultural societies for anyone to point to a specific cause. Your evidence is a non-entity, it doesn't enter into this discussion at all.

It IS a valid theory. One that won't be proven until you take a HG society and replace some of their member's diets with grains. Until then, it's a nice supposition and it doesn't bear discussion here. Especially when you look at how the infant mortality rate of HG societies can skew the data of post 45 age expectancy. It's definitely not a foil to the Havard study, as you've been trying to play it against Convo.

So until you give us some valid scientific proof, yes, I'll bash your paleo diet.
1. It isn't "my" paleo diet.
2. Experts in the field agree there are a lot of variables, but it is a valid theory, and does have evidence supporting it. The evidence is simply not conclusive enough for the standards of science. Butscientistsaren't dismissing it, so a layman doing so is just ignorant.
3. Convo linked the study to say grains are good, in response to a post that said "I don't want to live a short life like a paleo man" and my response that said "Well, Paleo man lived longer". That is not up for debate, the only debatable part is thereasonpaleo man lived longer. And, again, not eating grains is one of four theories in the anthropological community that is considered to bethe reason.
4. Infant mortality is pretty overblown. Wild animals had something like 50-60% infant mortality during the same time period that we were at 20-30%. We did pretty well.
 

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
3. Convo linked the study to say grains are good, in response to a post that said "I don't want to live a short life like a paleo man" and my response that said "Well, Paleo man lived longer". That is not up for debate, the only debatable part is thereasonpaleo man lived longer.
Paleo manDID NOTlive longer. That is not up for debate.
 

Convo

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,775
637
You were arguing a study that points out health benefits of whole grains, and why they are healthy with nothing to really support your claim. It's just silly.. That's why I stopped responding to it lol
 

mkopec

<Gold Donor>
26,431
40,443
Something to think about as well, is that grain in its natural form, which grew in the wild was not the grain of today. Same with corn or maize or probably rice as well. It was all spindly and did not have all but a small percentage of yield it does today. Just another thing humans have done over the eons is genetically altered the grains to have huge yields by cross breading etc...

I watched a program about this not too long ago. They were saying that even today its not unheard of to get 5%-6% more yield per acre year to year. And thats on top of the 300%-400% they already have gotten so far.

So these plants are not the same plants from long ago. Whose to say that they are not the cause of a whole plethora of medical issues just for the simple fact that they are genetically altered. No science to back this up, just saying. They can breed in traits from other plants like being insect and disease tolerant, whose to say WTF this shit is doing to us.

But its not stopping me from eating the shit, just sayin.
 

The Master

Bronze Squire
2,084
2
Paleo manDID NOTlive longer. That is not up for debate.
Except they did. Google it, or go back a few of my posts and check the study. Living to 72 withno medical technology of any kindjust isn't something that happened once we turned to agriculture. Even the median age (35.4) went down (33.5) till the Bronze age, so 7,000 years of not living as long as they used to. And of course once you get into the bronze age there are even more complicating factors about why median age may have gone back up. You guys have fun ignoring facts, I guess?
 

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
We live longer now, we don't eat the Paleo Diet, your entire argument is wrong. People today who eat grains and vegetables have a longer life expectancy than those who eat red meat, your entire argument is wrong. I GUESS LIKE LIKE IGNORING FACTS DERP
 

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,657
No one is much claiming that they lived shorter life spans. Well, generally they did. Nasty brutish and short. But the potential life span of the animal hasn't changed so much. Median ages in that context honestly mean jackshit. They're interesting to study in relation to disease and warfare and technology, and the overall progress of the organism, and they may even beinterestingto study in relation to nutrition (as a subset of the previous three). But they're just kind of interesting.

If you were really going to use the median age as the one most important determining factor in thinking about nutrition it shouldn't be a paleo diet which seems sexy... it should be an all rRNA foods all the fucking time diet. Median ages have gone up quite a bit. In fact, fuck food at all. Fuck the colon entirely. After all it is the one organ you can do without. Fuck it right in the colon ass. Mainline gruel that's made in a laboratory -- that's the path to healthy living.

Honestly, median age is some cherry picking bullshit.
 

The Master

Bronze Squire
2,084
2
No one is much claiming that they lived shorter life spans. Well, generally they did. Nasty brutish and short. But the potential life span of the animal hasn't changed so much. Median ages in that context honestly mean jackshit. They're interesting to study in relation to disease and warfare and technology, and the overall progress of the organism, and they may even beinterestingto study in relation to nutrition (as a subset of the previous three). But they're just kind of interesting.

If you were really going to use the median age as the one most important determining factor in thinking about nutrition it shouldn't be a paleo diet which seems sexy... it should be an all rRNA foods all the fucking time diet. Median ages have gone up quite a bit. In fact, fuck food at all. Fuck the colon entirely. Mainline gruel that's made in a laboratory -- that's the path to healthy living.

Honestly, median age is some cherry picking bullshit.
Sigh. Again, feel free to Google it. We lived longer before agriculture. It isn't like I am anything but the messenger here, but sure, feel free to ignore the entire field of Anthropology and all its arguments and conclusions.
 

Duppin_sl

shitlord
3,785
3
Robb Motherfucking Wolf is so elite that he doesn't even need to provide support for his own argument. He just tells you to google that shit.
 

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,835
2,931
Caveman confessions: Yesterday I had 3 pieces of pizza. It was home made pizza if that matters.

I felt like crap afterwards. Coincidence? or irrefutable evidence of the scientifically ironclad superiority of cutting grains? I think you all know the answer.