127 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

If whole grains are as bad as you claim why do numerous (all that I've seen) large prospective population studies show increased health (less diabetes, heart disease and cancer) with increased whole grain consumption.

If these studies only indicated that there wasn't increased disease that in itself would weaken your thesis, but the evidence shows that folks are healther with increased whole grain consumption.

If you believe that these studies are flawed please do more than just say they are flawed.

Also numerous metabolic ward studies (where you can monitor exactly and how much is eaten) have conclusively shown that calorie balance determines weight gain. It doesn't matter if the calories come from carbs, fat or protein. Many (but not all) free living studies have shown better weight loss with lower carb diets but this been because most folks eat less on these programs (and eating almost always good).

Regards
randyf

the studies of whole grains are extremely flawed because they did a poor job controlling for other dietary and healthy lifestyle factors that many people who eat a lot of whole grains (in the name of being "healthy") also tend to practice. is it the grains - which are relatively nutrient-sparse, chronically raise insulin if consumed regularly, and begin the inflammatory cascade due to gluten in many individuals - or the other lifestyle factors that are actually health promoting? due to this critical flaw, i am not impressed at all by the research on grains. even less impressive are the studies of fat being dangerous, which did not even control for the junk carbs most people (not us) consume that eat a high-fat diet. think mcdonald's, a high fat meal accompanied with hundreds of empty, fat-promoting refined carbohydrates.

as for the calories in, calories out... please read gary taubes' book for a thorough dismantling of that overly simplistic hypothesis. or at least watch this video.

http://webcast.berke...webcastid=21216

The statement 'the studies are flawed' is anecdotal at best. Whereas there are absolutely NO forthcoming studies that indicate that high fat/protein diets are best for the majority of people. It is interesting that some people here are scientific insofar as it suits a certain end argument, but become as equally anecdotal as those they accuse of being that whenever the need arises.You could just as easily say that those who succeed on this diet only do so because they work out vigorously with heavy weights. But how anecdotal would that be? I'm not saying I am right, you are wrong, or vice versa. What I am suggesting is that maybe certain diets are suitable to certain people via genetic predisposition. To taut this high fat, high protein diet as something everyone should adopt without knowing their genetics is kind of irresponsible. But by all means, let us experiment.

Can anyone here answer the following three questions?

1-How do females fair on this diet? I have not heard one case of a female tauting it.
2-How is the digestive/colin health of those who consume high amounts of saturated fat while on this diet?
3-And how is the health of those who, while on this diet, do absolutely no exercise?

Edited by TheFountain, 01 January 2009 - 06:02 PM.

[DukeNukem]

If whole grains are as bad as you claim why do numerous (all that I've seen) large prospective population studies show increased health (less diabetes, heart disease and cancer) with increased whole grain consumption.

If these studies only indicated that there wasn't increased disease that in itself would weaken your thesis, but the evidence shows that folks are healther with increased whole grain consumption.

If you believe that these studies are flawed please do more than just say they are flawed.

Also numerous metabolic ward studies (where you can monitor exactly and how much is eaten) have conclusively shown that calorie balance determines weight gain. It doesn't matter if the calories come from carbs, fat or protein. Many (but not all) free living studies have shown better weight loss with lower carb diets but this been because most folks eat less on these programs (and eating almost always good).

Regards
randyf

the studies of whole grains are extremely flawed because they did a poor job controlling for other dietary and healthy lifestyle factors that many people who eat a lot of whole grains (in the name of being "healthy") also tend to practice. is it the grains - which are relatively nutrient-sparse, chronically raise insulin if consumed regularly, and begin the inflammatory cascade due to gluten in many individuals - or the other lifestyle factors that are actually health promoting? due to this critical flaw, i am not impressed at all by the research on grains. even less impressive are the studies of fat being dangerous, which did not even control for the junk carbs most people (not us) consume that eat a high-fat diet. think mcdonald's, a high fat meal accompanied with hundreds of empty, fat-promoting refined carbohydrates.

as for the calories in, calories out... please read gary taubes' book for a thorough dismantling of that overly simplistic hypothesis. or at least watch this video.

http://webcast.berke...webcastid=21216

The statement 'the studies are flawed' is anecdotal at best. Whereas there are absolutely NO forthcoming studies that indicate that high fat/protein diets are best for the majority of people. It is interesting that some people here are scientific insofar as it suits a certain end argument, but become as equally anecdotal as those they accuse of being that whenever the need arises.You could just as easily say that those who succeed on this diet only do so because they work out vigorously with heavy weights. But how anecdotal would that be? I'm not saying I am right, you are wrong, or vice versa. What I am suggesting is that maybe certain diets are suitable to certain people via genetic predisposition. To taut this high fat, high protein diet as something everyone should adopt without knowing their genetics is kind of irresponsible. But by all means, let us experiment.

Can anyone here answer the following three questions?

1-How do females fair on this diet? I have not heard one case of a female tauting it.
2-How is the digestive/colin health of those who consume high amounts of saturated fat while on this diet?
3-And how is the health of those who, while on this diet, do absolutely no exercise?

We do not have a rock solid complete picture. Therefore, as individuals, we need to make the best of what is available, and try to intelligently fill in the gaps. There's little chance everyone will agree on everything.

BTW, a lot of people lift weights who, when they switched to a paleo diet, got much better results. So, lifting weights is not the make-or-break factor.

[DukeNukem]

Thanks for the oily answers.

Another oily question -- what is bad about canola oil? Is it genetically modified? I used to use this, before I switched to olive oil years ago.

Second question: should we be considered about the oils used in supplements? Many use what would be considered bad oils, or at least oils high in Omega-6: soy, corn, safflower, sunflower, etc. Lots of CoQ10 supplements use soy oil.

I noticed my D3 drops use fractionated coconut oil. Coconut oil may be good, but I'm not so sure if fractionated oil is.

But perhaps the doses are too low in most supplements to even matter?

You're right, fractionated oil should be avoided. But, I wouldn't worry about the small amount in your D3 drops or other supps.

Canola oil has almost 20% LA, so I think that's too high. Olive oil is only 9%.
http://www.rejuvenat...a-3-6-oils.html

[TheFountain]

If whole grains are as bad as you claim why do numerous (all that I've seen) large prospective population studies show increased health (less diabetes, heart disease and cancer) with increased whole grain consumption.

If these studies only indicated that there wasn't increased disease that in itself would weaken your thesis, but the evidence shows that folks are healther with increased whole grain consumption.

If you believe that these studies are flawed please do more than just say they are flawed.

Also numerous metabolic ward studies (where you can monitor exactly and how much is eaten) have conclusively shown that calorie balance determines weight gain. It doesn't matter if the calories come from carbs, fat or protein. Many (but not all) free living studies have shown better weight loss with lower carb diets but this been because most folks eat less on these programs (and eating almost always good).

Regards
randyf

the studies of whole grains are extremely flawed because they did a poor job controlling for other dietary and healthy lifestyle factors that many people who eat a lot of whole grains (in the name of being "healthy") also tend to practice. is it the grains - which are relatively nutrient-sparse, chronically raise insulin if consumed regularly, and begin the inflammatory cascade due to gluten in many individuals - or the other lifestyle factors that are actually health promoting? due to this critical flaw, i am not impressed at all by the research on grains. even less impressive are the studies of fat being dangerous, which did not even control for the junk carbs most people (not us) consume that eat a high-fat diet. think mcdonald's, a high fat meal accompanied with hundreds of empty, fat-promoting refined carbohydrates.

as for the calories in, calories out... please read gary taubes' book for a thorough dismantling of that overly simplistic hypothesis. or at least watch this video.

http://webcast.berke...webcastid=21216

The statement 'the studies are flawed' is anecdotal at best. Whereas there are absolutely NO forthcoming studies that indicate that high fat/protein diets are best for the majority of people. It is interesting that some people here are scientific insofar as it suits a certain end argument, but become as equally anecdotal as those they accuse of being that whenever the need arises.You could just as easily say that those who succeed on this diet only do so because they work out vigorously with heavy weights. But how anecdotal would that be? I'm not saying I am right, you are wrong, or vice versa. What I am suggesting is that maybe certain diets are suitable to certain people via genetic predisposition. To taut this high fat, high protein diet as something everyone should adopt without knowing their genetics is kind of irresponsible. But by all means, let us experiment.

Can anyone here answer the following three questions?

1-How do females fair on this diet? I have not heard one case of a female tauting it.
2-How is the digestive/colin health of those who consume high amounts of saturated fat while on this diet?
3-And how is the health of those who, while on this diet, do absolutely no exercise?

We do not have a rock solid complete picture. Therefore, as individuals, we need to make the best of what is available, and try to intelligently fill in the gaps. There's little chance everyone will agree on everything.

BTW, a lot of people lift weights who, when they switched to a paleo diet, got much better results. So, lifting weights is not the make-or-break factor.

On the other hand I know vegans who are leaner and slightly more muscular than I am despite about the same level of activity and exercise. So I think genetics plays a big part. All I am saying is that different diets may be suited to different genetics. I don't think there is one overall diet for everyone. People come in all sizes and backgrounds.

[TheFountain]

And besides, I am really eager to know what becomes of those on this diet who do not exercise after say, 6 months. I mean someone mentioned earlier that a study on whole grain diets was invalid because the study failed to take into account other variables of healthy life style. Well I am wondering what would happen to someone on this diet after 6 months without vigorous exercising. As yet the only promoters of this diet have been overtly stated weight lifters. Eliminate the weight lifting and see what happens. I am just curious. As another anecdotal, I have known people on vegan whole grain, moderate calorie diets who've gone years without exercising while maintaining the same body weight, which was invariably right for their BMI.

Edited by TheFountain, 01 January 2009 - 08:29 PM.

[sthira]

On the other hand I know vegans who are leaner and slightly more muscular than I am despite about the same level of activity and exercise. So I think genetics plays a big part. All I am saying is that different diets may be suited to different genetics. I don't think there is one overall diet for everyone. People come in all sizes and backgrounds.

People get emotional about eating, and so many like to think they know what's best. It's usually the amateurs who do the shrieking. Scientists who actually devote themselves to these issues are typically humble. Yet here, on the vegan forums, the raw food forums, the low-carb forums, the paleo forums, there are these loud, certain, inflexible voices. Maybe they've read some books, or heard some lectures, and something fits with their cultural and personal psychology. So they proclaim it's best for everyone, always, and if you're not eating how they're eating, well, you suck. It's an "I'm healthier than you" attitude that's sorta like "My dick's bigger than yours."

One thing anyone who studies nutrition says over and over: eat more whole fruits and vegetables. It must be incredibly frustrating for nutritionists to keep saying this, and still, people stay confused. It's too simple. It's too easy. We've just got to make things more complicated.

[CobaltThoriumG]

On the other hand I know vegans who are leaner and slightly more muscular than I am despite about the same level of activity and exercise. So I think genetics plays a big part. All I am saying is that different diets may be suited to different genetics. I don't think there is one overall diet for everyone. People come in all sizes and backgrounds.

People get emotional about eating, and so many like to think they know what's best. It's usually the amateurs who do the shrieking. Scientists who actually devote themselves to these issues are typically humble. Yet here, on the vegan forums, the raw food forums, the low-carb forums, the paleo forums, there are these loud, certain, inflexible voices. Maybe they've read some books, or heard some lectures, and something fits with their cultural and personal psychology. So they proclaim it's best for everyone, always, and if you're not eating how they're eating, well, you suck. It's an "I'm healthier than you" attitude that's sorta like "My dick's bigger than yours."

One thing anyone who studies nutrition says over and over: eat more whole fruits and vegetables. It must be incredibly frustrating for nutritionists to keep saying this, and still, people stay confused. It's too simple. It's too easy. We've just got to make things more complicated.

Things are more complicated. Recommendations are for the average person. The average person is mediocre and lives to 75. Fructose causes fructation. Now, maybe for a lot of people there's a balancing between the beneficial phytonutrients and fiber in fruits and the increased fructation. And sure, if you'd otherwide be cramming ho-hos down your gullet, eating more fruits and veggies is a good thing. But if you're supplementing with the phytonutrients, why subject yourself to the fructose? Just eat more leafy veggies.

[kai73]

Things are more complicated. Recommendations are for the average person. The average person is mediocre and lives to 75. Fructose causes fructation. Now, maybe for a lot of people there's a balancing between the beneficial phytonutrients and fiber in fruits and the increased fructation. And sure, if you'd otherwide be cramming ho-hos down your gullet, eating more fruits and veggies is a good thing. But if you're supplementing with the phytonutrients, why subject yourself to the fructose? Just eat more leafy veggies.

I think that based on current knowledge, it's less dangeous to eat many apples/carrots/oranges/blueberry despite of the fructose content rather than just eating some pills where there is just a single compound...

An apple can't be replaced by a pill of quercetin...cause an apple hasn't just quercetin in it...

[frederickson]

If whole grains are as bad as you claim why do numerous (all that I've seen) large prospective population studies show increased health (less diabetes, heart disease and cancer) with increased whole grain consumption.

If these studies only indicated that there wasn't increased disease that in itself would weaken your thesis, but the evidence shows that folks are healther with increased whole grain consumption.

If you believe that these studies are flawed please do more than just say they are flawed.

Also numerous metabolic ward studies (where you can monitor exactly and how much is eaten) have conclusively shown that calorie balance determines weight gain. It doesn't matter if the calories come from carbs, fat or protein. Many (but not all) free living studies have shown better weight loss with lower carb diets but this been because most folks eat less on these programs (and eating almost always good).

Regards
randyf

the studies of whole grains are extremely flawed because they did a poor job controlling for other dietary and healthy lifestyle factors that many people who eat a lot of whole grains (in the name of being "healthy") also tend to practice. is it the grains - which are relatively nutrient-sparse, chronically raise insulin if consumed regularly, and begin the inflammatory cascade due to gluten in many individuals - or the other lifestyle factors that are actually health promoting? due to this critical flaw, i am not impressed at all by the research on grains. even less impressive are the studies of fat being dangerous, which did not even control for the junk carbs most people (not us) consume that eat a high-fat diet. think mcdonald's, a high fat meal accompanied with hundreds of empty, fat-promoting refined carbohydrates.

as for the calories in, calories out... please read gary taubes' book for a thorough dismantling of that overly simplistic hypothesis. or at least watch this video.

http://webcast.berke...webcastid=21216

The statement 'the studies are flawed' is anecdotal at best. Whereas there are absolutely NO forthcoming studies that indicate that high fat/protein diets are best for the majority of people. It is interesting that some people here are scientific insofar as it suits a certain end argument, but become as equally anecdotal as those they accuse of being that whenever the need arises.You could just as easily say that those who succeed on this diet only do so because they work out vigorously with heavy weights. But how anecdotal would that be? I'm not saying I am right, you are wrong, or vice versa. What I am suggesting is that maybe certain diets are suitable to certain people via genetic predisposition. To taut this high fat, high protein diet as something everyone should adopt without knowing their genetics is kind of irresponsible. But by all means, let us experiment.

Can anyone here answer the following three questions?

1-How do females fair on this diet? I have not heard one case of a female tauting it.
2-How is the digestive/colin health of those who consume high amounts of saturated fat while on this diet?
3-And how is the health of those who, while on this diet, do absolutely no exercise?

i'm not sure i understand your claim that the flaws i pointed out are anecdotal. they are concrete, real flaws... the authors did not adjust for many other healthy lifestyle factors associated with grain consumption. there is nothing anecdotal about the fact that they did not control for MANY potential confounders. it's just poor science.

similarly, i agree that there is not (yet) enough of a research basis to support a high-fat, low-carb diet for everyone. though i think the studies are better, they are still flawed in some ways and much of the success people report (myself included) is indeed anecdotal. but that does not make the grains studies any better or make the criticisms i pointed out any less valid. the "benefits of grains" studies are quite weak and unconvincing, and the low-fat studies are even worse. anyone with access to the journals can corroborate these weaknesses.

Edited by frederickson, 02 January 2009 - 12:43 AM.

[Ben]

BTW, a lot of people lift weights who, when they switched to a paleo diet, got much better results. So, lifting weights is not the make-or-break factor.

There's a study that shepard posted showing that men who gained the greatest majority of their calories from fat had the highest resting free testosterone. Interestingly, those who had most of their calories from carbohydrates had the lowest.

[NDM]

On the Saturated Fat component, I think that there is good evidence that Coconut Oil is beneficial to health. I am sold on eating it every day.

I do eat beef, eggs, and butter a couple of times a week, but I am not yet sold that there are particular benefits from these sources of saturated fats.
Nor do I know whether there are detriments. I do suspect that a diet that has too much of these sources of saturated fats could lead to some inflamation.
That's just a personal observation based on making fresh whipped cream and strawberries and getting some acne. Of course, my observations could be totally off.

I'm glad I'm not the only one to have noticed - time and time again - acne from saturated fats. The other fats are OK - I don't get pimples from French fries, but do get them from butter, coconut, chocolate, whipped cream, hazelnuts, etc.

(on top of the usual saturated-fat-induced acne, I get particularly bad acne from two items: soy and peanuts)

However, I don't think it's necessarily via excessive inflammation - maybe we have some genetic issue that involves inadequate saturated fat metabolism.

[DukeNukem]

And besides, I am really eager to know what becomes of those on this diet who do not exercise after say, 6 months. I mean someone mentioned earlier that a study on whole grain diets was invalid because the study failed to take into account other variables of healthy life style. Well I am wondering what would happen to someone on this diet after 6 months without vigorous exercising. As yet the only promoters of this diet have been overtly stated weight lifters. Eliminate the weight lifting and see what happens. I am just curious. As another anecdotal, I have known people on vegan whole grain, moderate calorie diets who've gone years without exercising while maintaining the same body weight, which was invariably right for their BMI.

Read this blog entry by Mark Sisson, who is on a high-fat, no grain paleo diet, talking about not being able to do cardio for months due to an injury. Here's part of what he wrote:

As many of you know, I am coming off a three month rehab from knee surgery. I’m about 95% healed now and can even do my “Indigenous Peoples Stretch” (a full unloaded squat) – a sure sign that all is well. Throughout this time, I have maintained my usual diet and have done whatever upper-body lifting I could manage that didn’t also require substantial leg involvement (pushups, pull-ups, dips, cable-work, etc). Despite my (or should I say “because of my”) high-fat diet and doing pretty much zero cardio over the past four months (including a fair amount of down time before the knee surgery) my weight, my lean mass and my body fat have all remained steady.

I, too, have done quite poorly on my workouts in the past year, with almost no cardio (maybe three sessions), and averaging only one strength workout a week (I traveled extensively last year, keeping me out of the gym). Yet, my strength and bodyfat remained constant on a high-fat, low-carb diet. And this is without episodic fasting, which I've only started to do last month. So, the point is, you don't need to exercise to benefit from a high-fat diet. Another example is my co-worker friend, who started this diet a year ago, and has lost 20 pounds, putting him at a perfect, lean weight (he wasn't too overweight to begin with), and he doesn't do a lick of exercise -- he sits at a desk all day, and plays video games at night. He's 44 yrs-old, btw. He has his health markers checked annually, and while I do not remember the exact figures, his latest ones where outstanding, which extremely low CRP, sub-50 triglycerides, and 75-ish HDL. He cheats by eating grains occasionally, otherwise his HDLs would be higher, I'm certain.

Now then, do you have any idea what the health markers are of your veggie friends? I would place a big bet that they are much less impressive than us paleo high-fat eaters.

All I am saying is that different diets may be suited to different genetics. I don't think there is one overall diet for everyone. People come in all sizes and backgrounds.

I think genetics is seriously over-appreciated. We are all basically the same, we can all inter-breed, and we all have he same biological needs. Genetics gets pulled into the equation far too often, when it's a neutral factor. Every time I hear someone play the genetics card when it comes to nutrition it's time to just agree to disagree, because there's no getting around the argument that different people do better on different diets because of their genetics. If that's what you wish to believe, then you've given yourself the necessary out that allows to to justify whatever you want to eat.

Edited by DukeNukem, 02 January 2009 - 04:24 AM.

[JLL]

"If that's what you wish to believe, then you've given yourself the necessary out that allows to to justify whatever you want to eat."

Exactly.

What bothers me most is that people attempt to justify their eating with meaningless arguments like this. Why do they need to justify their diet to me or anyone else? If someone would just say "I eat grains because they taste good", I'd be fine with that.

[niner]

I think that based on current knowledge, it's less dangeous to eat many apples/carrots/oranges/blueberry despite of the fructose content rather than just eating some pills where there is just a single compound...

An apple can't be replaced by a pill of quercetin...cause an apple hasn't just quercetin in it...

Rather than a single compound, you can use extracts that contain multiple compounds. For example, I use a pomegranate extract instead of drinking 8oz of juice every day. It's cheaper and I avoid a lot of sugar. While it's undoubtedly inferior to juicing my own fresh fruit every morning, it probably has 90+ percent of the good stuff, and it's something I can actually do. Aside from that, if you choose your fruit well, you can eat fresh fruit and still avoid a lot of sugar. Berries are way better than the large fruits, not only for sugar content but also for the phytochemicals they contain.

[TheFountain]

DUKE SAID:
Read this blog entry by Mark Sisson, who is on a high-fat, no grain paleo diet, talking about not being able to do cardio for months due to an injury. Here's part of what he wrote:
As many of you know, I am coming off a three month rehab from knee surgery. I’m about 95% healed now and can even do my “Indigenous Peoples Stretch” (a full unloaded squat) – a sure sign that all is well. Throughout this time, I have maintained my usual diet and have done whatever upper-body lifting I could manage that didn’t also require substantial leg involvement (pushups, pull-ups, dips, cable-work, etc). Despite my (or should I say “because of my”) high-fat diet and doing pretty much zero cardio over the past four months (including a fair amount of down time before the knee surgery) my weight, my lean mass and my body fat have all remained steady.
MY RESPONSE:
I read that the other day actually. In it he also states that he had continued most of his major upper body lifting which still may have conceivably burned alot of fat. I also do not think this is a fair enough of a period, as I believe it takes longer for already built muscle mass to completely break down.

DUKE SAID:
I, too, have done quite poorly on my workouts in the past year, with almost no cardio (maybe three sessions), and averaging only one strength workout a week (I traveled extensively last year, keeping me out of the gym). Yet, my strength and bodyfat remained constant on a high-fat, low-carb diet.
MY RESPONSE:
yes but you might be underestimating the effect of those three cardio and one strength session on your overall body fat levels. I think it is necessary to run a controlled experiment to see what the effects of a very inactive person on such a diet would be after several months to a year.

DUKE SAID:
So, the point is, you don't need to exercise to benefit from a high-fat diet. Another example is my co-worker friend, who started this diet a year ago, and has lost 20 pounds, putting him at a perfect, lean weight (he wasn't too overweight to begin with), and he doesn't do a lick of exercise -- he sits at a desk all day, and plays video games at night. He's 44 yrs-old, btw. He has his health markers checked annually, and while I do not remember the exact figures, his latest ones where outstanding, which extremely low CRP, sub-50 triglycerides, and 75-ish HDL. He cheats by eating grains occasionally, otherwise his HDLs would be higher, I'm certain.
MY RESPONSE:
What about digestive and colin health? Such high saturated fat diets are known to fill the gut with residue for years, which is why colin cleansers were developed in the first place. All that rough meat may only exacerbate the issue. And I can actually state that many vegan and vegetarian friends of all ages have similar health markers, they get their basic stats done annually. I do not know the exact levels, I would need to ask them, but I know they pass their physicals and stress tests with flying colors. Which only adds to the idea that different diets are suitable to different people of different backgrounds.

DUKE SAID:
Now then, do you have any idea what the health markers are of your veggie friends? I would place a big bet that they are much less impressive than us paleo high-fat eaters.
MY RESPONSE:
I think this is an arrogant assumption.

DUKE SAID:
I think genetics is seriously over-appreciated.
MY RESPONSE:
Not really, the genetic markers are obvious, certain groups are prone to diabetes, some are prone to cancer, some are prone to thyroiditus, some are prone to heart disease and some are just sadly victims of their environment.

DUKE SAID:
We are all basically the same, we can all inter-breed, and we all have he same biological needs.
MY RESPONSE:
Well interbreeding actually alters familial genetics generationally as evidenced by specific gene pairings leading to certain disorders and diseases in the children of some interbred couples. This does not mean people should become promoters of eugenics, but that the paired genes need to be identified and artificially deactivated to not lead to certain disease factors.

DUKE SAID:
Genetics gets pulled into the equation far too often, when it's a neutral factor. Every time I hear someone play the genetics card when it comes to nutrition it's time to just agree to disagree, because there's no getting around the argument that different people do better on different diets because of their genetics. If that's what you wish to believe, then you've given yourself the necessary out that allows to to justify whatever you want to eat.
MY RESPONSE:
The problem is both of us are offering Anecdotal evidence only. I mean someone did post a research study earlier but apparently that is not good enough science for some, which is convenient for some peoples arguments in favour of the paleo diet. The fact remains though that there is absolutely no complete scientific review that has been peer reviewed in evidence of this High fat, High protein diet as being suitable for all people, of all backgrounds. The same flaws being pointed to in the forementioned studies exist in the promoters of the Paleo diets assessments. Not everything is factored in. Add to this that there is no absolute evidence that cereal grains were not consumed by homosapiens during the late period of this epoch, thus allowing internal adaptation to occur in hominins. It could be that they didn't consume cereal grains or it could be that fossil records are incomplete. Again I ask, have you heard of any women who have adopted this 'paleo diet? If so what are their markers and physical conditions? It just seems very odd that only men are tauting this. And those who engage in regular weight training.

[DukeNukem]

The bias against red meat shines through in this article. The article is titled, "Burgers, Fries, and Diet Soda Are Recipe for Metabolic Syndrome." Which is pretty on target. Clearly, a fast food diet is bad news because fast food companies use every penny-squeezing trick they can to keep prices low and competitive, and this means they use the cheapest possible foods and ingredients (including grade C meats -- for reference, grade D is pet food quality). Plus, a fast food diet is full of starches, grains and grain-derived carbs (such as corn syrup).

But, the opening paragraph of this article reveals the medical professions brainwashed bias: "Middle-age adults who regularly eat a double burger, fries, and a diet soda for lunch or dinner increase their risk of incident metabolic syndrome by 25% compared with those who limit red meat to two servings a week."

Why do they compare a full fast food dinner with red meat??? What about the all of the cheap processed carbs, or the inflammatory omega-6 rich oil used to fry the french fries? IMO, the red meat in the burger is the healthiest part of this disastrous meal. Yet, the prevailing wisdom of most nutritionist and lay-people is that the red meat is the culprit. Never mind that we consumed red meat for two million years, while grains and pure omega-6 oils are new additions to our diets.

But, near the end of the article, after putting all the blame on the meat, there's this interesting paragraph: "An unexpected finding was that consuming a prudent diet (i.e. one that had a high concentration of fruits, vegetables, whole grains) and low-fat dairy products did not reduce the risk of metabolic syndrome."

So, in other words, after spending an entire article slamming red meat, the study's authors note that a "prudent diet" with whole grains did not reduce the risk for metabolic syndrome. Well, no shit Sherlock. The meat ain't the problem. It's the grains and the processed omega-6 oils.

[HaloTeK]

BTW, a lot of people lift weights who, when they switched to a paleo diet, got much better results. So, lifting weights is not the make-or-break factor.

There's a study that shepard posted showing that men who gained the greatest majority of their calories from fat had the highest resting free testosterone. Interestingly, those who had most of their calories from carbohydrates had the lowest.

This is the exact argument i use to say that a diet higher in carbs might be good for longevity based on lower free testosterone. Maybe not so good for your muscles, but good for longevity.

[Forever21]

Duke,

I would like to hear your rebuttal of this wiki entry and its references

http://en.wikipedia....#Health_effects

Reading it as a lay-man, I can see that the blame is being put on haemoglobin and myoglobin found in red meat and the creation of heterocyclic amines during cooking.

[Mind]

From the wiki article:

It has been suggested that these health risks are largely absent from grass-fed beef

This has been brought up before.

Please don't forget that no one here is saying vegetables are bad or that limiting meat consumption is bad. I think some people are assuming this even though it has not been stated. What has been stated is that too much sugar, particularly refined carbs, but even too many carbs from whole grains are bad for longevity.

[Forever21]

It was actually a reply to Duke's post 106 about red meat.

Edited by Forever21, 02 January 2009 - 11:20 PM.

[Mind]

Right.

I don't want to put words in Duke's mouth, but I think he is saying that the meat in the typical fast food meal is the best thing in there, NOT that the meat in the typical fast food meal (corn-fed beef) is the best thing you could possibly eat in the world. The rest of the fast food meal is basically worthless sugar calories and oxidized fats.

[Forever21]

There is no doubt that that comes with the meat (in that post) is bad. (grain, fries, soft drinks) The wiki article refers to what's found in the meat itself. (haemoglobin and myoglobin, heterocyclic amines) I was wondering what Duke's thoughts on that considering what's in it is claimed to be deadly. I am this close to biting that steak.

Edited by Forever21, 02 January 2009 - 11:45 PM.

[Forever21]

Re: original post

What would you do if you've eaten food made of these?

- anti-AGE supplements should help (carnosine, benfotiamine, taurine, pyridoxine)
- increase eating of anti-inflammatory food
- take more fish oil, omega-3
- damage is done, just try not to do it again

Is that right? If not, what should one do?

Edited by Forever21, 02 January 2009 - 11:58 PM.

[DukeNukem]

Duke,

I would like to hear your rebuttal of this wiki entry and its references

http://en.wikipedia....#Health_effects

Reading it as a lay-man, I can see that the blame is being put on haemoglobin and myoglobin found in red meat and the creation of heterocyclic amines during cooking.

I don't have time to defend all the accusations in that wikipedia article, but here's something in regards to the oft-touted colon cancer.

[DukeNukem]

There is no doubt that that comes with the meat (in that post) is bad. (grain, fries, soft drinks) The wiki article refers to what's found in the meat itself. (haemoglobin and myoglobin, heterocyclic amines) I was wondering what Duke's thoughts on that considering what's in it is claimed to be deadly. I am this close to biting that steak.

Note that I do not eat, nor do I recommend, fast-food quality meats (and this includes Subway, which I specifically mention since it touts itself as a healthy alternative). I haven't been to a fast food joint in 8+ years, and even my kids refuse to go to these frankenfood factories.

I always seek out high-quality meats, and when I buy meats I buy the grass-fed, free range meats, with no preservatives. I only eat out at restaurants that have higher grade meats, and I always make sure they cook with butter (not surprisingly, most higher quality restaurants already use butter or lard, because it tastes better than vegetable oil). Now then, there's no getting around that fact that the meats we're getting nowadays are not as good quality as paleo humans got, but by avoiding fast/cheap food restaurants you can still do pretty good.

[DukeNukem]

Re: original post

What would you do if you've eaten food made of these?

- anti-AGE supplements should help (carnosine, benfotiamine, taurine, pyridoxine)
- increase eating of anti-inflammatory food
- take more fish oil, omega-3
- damage is done, just try not to do it again

Is that right? If not, what should one do?

If you're under 30, I wouldn't worry about anything other than improving your diet. Vegetables and good oils are already anti-inflammatory. Yes, take one or two fish oil daily. If you're overweight then a paleo diet will get you back to normal over time. Episodic fasting will definitely speed up the process. A person's health markers improve dramatically/radically fast when they switch to a grain-free, vegetable-oil free, fructose-free diet. Try it for one month. Note that if you've been a high-grain eater, it will take a week or so to break through the carb addiction barrier, but then it's smooth sailing as your hunger level plummets and you can go for 4-7 hours easy without the urge to eat.

[Forever21]

re: wikipedia
Thanks, great link.


re: meat
Got it. Premium quality, grass-fed, free range, expensive beef with no preservatives. Kobe beef too I'm guessing.


re: diet
I'm 27 and have already given up grains/fructose months ago after reading your posts. Now I gotta watch out for vegetable oil.


Thanks for all the points. Looking forward for the book list.

[kai73]

A person's health markers improve dramatically/radically fast when they switch to a grain-free, vegetable-oil free, fructose-free diet. Try it for one month.

avoiding fructose means taking out almost all fruits from the diet. also some vegetables have fructose. eating 5-8 servings of vegetable/fruit brings almost 60gr of sugar daily (mainly fructose).

so i should stop eating raw tomatoes,apples,carrots and so on. is that right?

[Ben]

A person's health markers improve dramatically/radically fast when they switch to a grain-free, vegetable-oil free, fructose-free diet. Try it for one month.

avoiding fructose means taking out almost all fruits from the diet. also some vegetables have fructose. eating 5-8 servings of vegetable/fruit brings almost 60gr of sugar daily (mainly fructose).

so i should stop eating raw tomatoes,apples,carrots and so on. is that right?

I think the message coming from Duke and from Stephen's (whole health source) blogs is not to avoid vegetables and to focus on small fruits like berries etc.

[DukeNukem]

A person's health markers improve dramatically/radically fast when they switch to a grain-free, vegetable-oil free, fructose-free diet. Try it for one month.

avoiding fructose means taking out almost all fruits from the diet. also some vegetables have fructose. eating 5-8 servings of vegetable/fruit brings almost 60gr of sugar daily (mainly fructose).

so i should stop eating raw tomatoes,apples,carrots and so on. is that right?

Fructose from whole fruits and berries is fine, because you'd need to eat a lot of fruit to get unhealthy levels of this sugar. I'm referring to any source of fructose that's not with nature's own packaging. For example, agave sweetener, table sugar, and corn syrup. Honey is slightly over 50% fructose, and while I do not use it I think it's an okay choice now and then.

For myself, I only eat berries because they provide a lot more nutrition in exchange for modest levels of fructose. Plus, with berries, you eat the skin, which is where nature stores most of its nutrients. When you peel an orange or a banana, for example, and just eat the inside, you're getting much less of the nutrients in exchange for the sugar (fructose and other sugars). And of course fruit drinks are merely sugar bombs.

Edited by DukeNukem, 03 January 2009 - 03:12 PM.