50 replies to this topic

[paleo]

paleo, I would honestly throw up if I ate the way you discuss. I would probably throw up if I saw someone else eating that way too. I only know how my body reacts, and when I began eating less meat and more veggies, concentrating more on the nutrients per calorie that I was taking in, it made a world of difference as to how I felt. If eating a high fat, red meat laden diet is for you, go for it man, but that just sounds extremely unhealthy to me.

It may sound unhealthy to you, but it's the diet we are designed to eat. I'd hate to see how quickly you would die out in nature. I mean, I guess you could gather instead of hunt, but that really wouldn't be feasible in the dead of winter would it?

As to how you feel with meat, it's probably all in your head. So do you eat alot of grains, beans, and other sources of garbage proteins?

[paleo]

Actually, I eat much lard daily

Are you from Mississippi? If so, do you eat pig feet?

Nope and nope. But I do love to eat the delicious pig belly. Ofcourse, it is completely nitrate, sodium, and sugar free. Nothing better than healthy bacon and eggs (cooked properly ofcourse). Sure beats feeling tired from a seretonin inducing carb breakfast and then starving shortly after. Gotta love the Taurine!

[scottl]

Paleo,

Mercola is often an idiot, though a friend did get a borderline high level of mercury eating 1/4 or perhaps 1/3 lbs salmon every day for months (years?)

In any case, I was arguing from the most conservative/defensible position. What you say about fat may be correct (for some people). You should checkout metabolic typing. In any case, I think you make the same mistake as teh veggie people. There is no one diet right for everyone. Some thrive and do best on veggie diets, I probably do best on a near cavemen diet, others may have more flexibility.

The key is tailor your diet/supp regimen to your body and it's individualized needs and not preconcieved notions. I've met plenty of veggies who force the diet on themselves and who would be better off eating meat. Cravings for meat are a clue (hint hint).


Oh and Jay I do not think the conversation rates of flax are reliable or the same from person to person. I'd take more omega 3s.

[paleo]

Paleo,

Mercola is often an idiot, though a friend did get a borderline high level of mercury eating 1/4 or perhaps 1/3 lbs salmon every day for months (years?)

In any case, I was arguing from the most conservative/defensible position.  What you say about fat may be correct (for some people).  You should checkout metabolic typing.  In any case, I think you make the same mistake as teh veggie people.  There is no one diet right for everyone.  Some thrive and do best on veggie diets, I probably do best on a near cavemen diet, others may have more flexibility.

The key is tailor your diet/supp regimen to your body and it's individualized needs and not preconcieved notions. I've met plenty of veggies who force the diet on themselves and who would be better off eating meat.  Cravings for meat are a clue (hint hint).


Oh and Jay I do not think the conversation rates of flax are reliable or the same from person to person. I'd take more omega 3s.

That's ALOT of salmon dude! Interesting, since salmon isn't even close to as high in merc as tuna. I eat mostly sardines, herring, and salmon (but only once/week).

I know about metabolic typing and don't buy it. I just don't see how people can have adapted to thrive on grains. It takes the biochemistry of our digestive systems MUCH more than 10000 years to evolve. I just don't see how anyone could possibly be healthy being vegan longer term.

Meat is the most nutrient dense food on the planet.

[Live Forever]

I know about metabolic typing and don't buy it.  I just don't see how people can have adapted to thrive on grains.  It takes the biochemistry of our digestive systems MUCH more than 10000 years to evolve. 

I disagree. The first modern humans showed up 10,000-15,000 years ago. Since then there has been differentiation of races. Some people have light skin, some have dark, some are bigger, some are smaller, lots of different skeletal structures, etc. etc. I think those changes are much more drastic than what would be needed to differentiate digestive systems.

[paleo]

I know about metabolic typing and don't buy it.  I just don't see how people can have adapted to thrive on grains.  It takes the biochemistry of our digestive systems MUCH more than 10000 years to evolve. 

I disagree. The first modern humans showed up 10,000-15,000 years ago. Since then there has been differentiation of races. Some people have light skin, some have dark, some are bigger, some are smaller, lots of different skeletal structures, etc. etc. I think those changes are much more drastic than what would be needed to differentiate digestive systems.

You're right, but multiply your 10000-15000 by 10X to 100X and you'd be even more right. Maybe our digestive systems will evolve to eat grains in another 100000 years, but not now. 10000 years is a mere flick of time in our evolution.

[ajnast4r]

I'm playing much into the paleo diet because it's what humans are designed to eat and therefore the healthiest.  Like it or not, this is the way we evolved.

yes, a million years ago... evolution is a continual process. you are obviously not the same as a caveman who lives on red meat and animal fat

As for the potent carcinogens, what about gluten?  casein?  grains are poison.  look it up.  Carcinogens on meat are only caused by high heat and charring.  We've evolved to make it here on meat have we not?  Should all the neanderthals died from cancer?

gluten isnt a poison to everyone... far from it for most. and where do you get that grains are poison? i would love to see some sort of evidence for that one. casein is argueable.

i think the average neanderthal lifespan was what... 25-30 years? who knows what they died from.

[emerson]

The first modern humans showed up 10,000-15,000 years ago. Since then there has been differentiation of races. Some people have light skin, some have dark, some are bigger, some are smaller, lots of different skeletal structures, etc. etc. I think those changes are much more drastic than what would be needed to differentiate digestive systems.

Not to mention that it's a trait which would be selected for at a pretty high rate. Even a fairly minor improvement would be enough to dramatically shift one up in terms of both sexual selection and ability to outlive. Of course the big problem is that it's a bit of a shrugger. Might have occurred, might not, we're stuck with battles of feelings instead of facts. And, sadly, locking people in cages for years of forced menus is about the only way to get what I would judge definitive proof either way.

[Live Forever]

Not to mention that it's a trait which would be selected for at a pretty high rate. Even a fairly minor improvement would be enough to dramatically shift one up in terms of both sexual selection and ability to outlive. Of course the big problem is that it's a bit of a shrugger. Might have occurred, might not, we're stuck with battles of feelings instead of facts. And, sadly, locking people in cages for years of forced menus is about the only way to get what I would judge definitive proof either way.

I heard that shepard and scottl both live in cages already, so it shouldn't be that much of an adjustment for them.

[paleo]

ajnas4r:

Yikes, sorry if the quoting is messed up. Gluten is absolutely garbage, like soy. Check out all the links I provided in the Fish Oil Processing thread in "Supplements". You may find of interest the Audio interview on Gluten. It's a protein that is near impossible to digest. As yes, one of the most allergic things on this planet. Casein has been linked to cancer and is apparently the equivalent to gluten as it cannot be digested.

And actually, we are essentially the same as the cavemen. Evolution is a continual process but it is EXTREMELY slow. Check out Neanderthin by Ray Audette or Enter The Zone/The Omega Rx by Dr. Barry Sears. Also look at the links I provided in the other thread. You will quickly see that our genes aren't much different than a million years ago. Remember, SLOW process.

The average span was short, primarily for reasons of trauma and infectious disease. Furthermore, how do they know that it was that short right? Maybe they were really twice that age but since they didn't have any degenerative diseases like we have today it appeared that they looked younger. Remember, obesity, diabetes, tooth decay all started about 10000 years ago with the advent of agriculture has can be seen from egyptian mummies.

[Shepard]

I heard that shepard and scottl both live in cages already, so it shouldn't be that much of an adjustment for them.

The night time they let me out for a walk I'm coming to whomp your ass.

[emerson]

You will quickly see that our genes aren't much different than a million years ago.  Remember, SLOW process.

I'd certainly agree that evolution drifts very heavily into the slow category. But it's not a hard rule by any means. Dramatic changes in selective pressure can speed up the process tremendously, and most definitely so when we're only talking about relatively minor changes in existing structures, such as improved digestion. Take dogs as an example. We're looking at about the same timeframe with their differation from wolves as with human agriculture. The changes in selective pressure was enough that within that period we get the wolf giving rise to the tiny, shivering, poodle. Genetically, that poodle and the wolf aren't much different either. With genetics, quite often a little can go a long way. Again though, of course we're stuck dealing with "what if" situations. It certainly could have been enough time, but that's not necessarily to say it was.

Remember, obesity, diabetes, tooth decay all started about 10000 years ago with the advent of agriculture has can be seen from egyptian mummies.

Of course when agriculture comes along, we also see class structures arising which allow for people to more easily avoid starving to death and thus living into ages with a higher chance of illness, and allows for social classes that can sit on their asses all day while others do the work.

[paleo]

You will quickly see that our genes aren't much different than a million years ago.  Remember, SLOW process.

I'd certainly agree that evolution drifts very heavily into the slow category. But it's not a hard rule by any means. Dramatic changes in selective pressure can speed up the process tremendously, and most definitely so when we're only talking about relatively minor changes in existing structures, such as improved digestion. Take dogs as an example. We're looking at about the same timeframe with their differation from wolves as with human agriculture. The changes in selective pressure was enough that within that period we get the wolf giving rise to the tiny, shivering, poodle. Genetically, that poodle and the wolf aren't much different either. With genetics, quite often a little can go a long way. Again though, of course we're stuck dealing with "what if" situations. It certainly could have been enough time, but that's not necessarily to say it was.



Of course when agriculture comes along, we also see class structures arising which allow for people to more easily avoid starving to death and thus living into ages with a higher chance of illness, and allows for social classes that can sit on their asses all day while others do the work.

Good post. You've made me think a little more about the cavemen and what would their health be like should they have lived into there 60's and 70's. Then again, we can't prove that they *didn't* live that long (as explained previous).

Instead of stating that we should eat like we did a million years ago, maybe I should say let's eat like we did 10-15k years ago ie. the way before agriculture. Heck, even if we ate like we did 100-200 years ago we'd be better off.

Still, with what you said about evolution....*maybe* some people *are* capable to digesting certain newer foods without problem. However, now we are basically dealing with pasteurized and refined dairy, grains that don't even come close to resembling the low gluten grains of the past, and genetically refined everything. Therefore, there is no we our digestion can change in the last 70-80 years when most of this has occured. Interesting to think about.

[jaydfox]

Perhaps you're confusing cholesterol with oxidized cholesterol?

If your LDL reaches 300, and your HDL is 50, do you have a plan for preventing that cholesterol from oxidizing?

[jaydfox]

Perhaps you're confusing cholesterol with oxidized cholesterol?

If your LDL reaches 300, and your HDL is 50, do you have a plan for preventing that cholesterol from oxidizing?

Study after study after study (after study...) has shown that high LDL and vLDL levels are very strongly correlated with heart disease and atheroslerosis and reduced lifespan. Very low levels, interestingly enough, also seem to correlate with shortened lifespans, though very low levels also tend to correlate with malnutrition and/or diseases. It's hard to find good data on very low LDL levels in people that eat an otherwise very healthy diet, maintain a healthy weight, and exercise properly/regularly.

Show me a study that shows that LDL levels over 300 (or even 250) are good for lifespan and cardiovascular health, and I'll stop saying that pigging out on cholesterol is wreckless.

[paleo]

[quote]
If your LDL reaches 300, and your HDL is 50, do you have a plan for preventing that cholesterol from oxidizing?[/quote]
Study after study after study (after study...) has shown that high LDL and vLDL levels are very strongly correlated with heart disease and atheroslerosis and reduced lifespan. Very low levels, interestingly enough, also seem to correlate with shortened lifespans, though very low levels also tend to correlate with malnutrition and/or diseases. It's hard to find good data on very low LDL levels in people that eat an otherwise very healthy diet, maintain a healthy weight, and exercise properly/regularly.

Show me a study that shows that LDL levels over 300 (or even 250) are good for lifespan and cardiovascular health, and I'll stop saying that pigging out on cholesterol is wreckless.[/quote]

You fail to realize that most blood cholesterol does NOT come from dietary cholesterol.

Reading this may be of interest to you:

http://www.theomnivo...L_May_2005.html

Don't worry, there are good references for all claims made.

You may also find this site shocking, yet very informative:

http://www.thincs.org/

There are books written on subject by many well respected scientists. You may also be interested in Colpo's new book "The Great Cholesterol Con".

So enjoy the eggs, but easy on the frying!

[Shepard]

Have you read Colpo's book yet? I've yet to pick it up, but I'm looking forward to it.

[opales]

Some critisism of "cholesterol and saturated fat skeptics"

http://www.skepdic.c...nk28.html#part2

Uffe Ravnskov's The Cholesterol Myths - Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease (2000) is the bible of  cholesterol contrarianism. (Henceforth, the author will be referred to as UR.) These contrarians call themselves skeptics but their goal is not to examine all the evidence and think critically about it in the large context of our medical knowledge. Their goal is to cherry pick data to support their contention that low cholesterol is bad for you and high cholesterol is positively good for you. A diet high in saturated fats is never unhealthy, in their opinion. Not everything they say is false. Much of it is true. But everything they say is taken out of context to support their contention.

[paleo]

Have you read Colpo's book yet? I've yet to pick it up, but I'm looking forward to it.

Negative, i'm waiting for it to be distrubuted closer to home, but after viewing the table of contents i'm also definitely looking forward to it. The thing I love about Colpo is that he is very stubborn with FACTS.

[paleo]

Some critisism of "cholesterol and saturated fat skeptics"

http://www.skepdic.c...nk28.html#part2

Uffe Ravnskov's The Cholesterol Myths - Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease (2000) is the bible of  cholesterol contrarianism. (Henceforth, the author will be referred to as UR.) These contrarians call themselves skeptics but their goal is not to examine all the evidence and think critically about it in the large context of our medical knowledge. Their goal is to cherry pick data to support their contention that low cholesterol is bad for you and high cholesterol is positively good for you. A diet high in saturated fats is never unhealthy, in their opinion. Not everything they say is false. Much of it is true. But everything they say is taken out of context to support their contention.

That was awful. I mean it was good if you want to prove my point is correct. But to start off saying that "much of it is true"? Well, at least he's honest.

Regardless, perhaps he's right that many of the points are selective and he doesn't address genetics, smoking, obesity, etc. However, the bottom line here is that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol DO NOT cause these conditions.

If you read everything from both sides, I feel that going back to eat like our ancestors makes the healthiest sense. But if it doesn't work for you, then hey, who am I to argue -- eat what makes you feel the best. Inside of me I know we have the potential to feel both mentally and physically AWESOME. Weston Price proved this through his travels all over the world where people ate natural, indigenous diets coincidentally based on low card, moderate protein, and high fat.

[Brainbox]

ALA from flaxoil/walnuts/etc is converted to EPA at around 5% and DHA at 1-2% in healthy individuals(some studies say higher, some lower so i gave the middle ground).... not counting retroconversion

Could this mean that there's a risk for downregulating the naturlal conversion from ALA to EPA/DHA? I mean in a way that you could develop a certain dependency of EPA/DHA supplementation? Compared to the amount of EPA/DHA that is made available though conversion and plain fish consumption the supllemented ammount is huge.