• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

The calorie fallacy


  • Please log in to reply
187 replies to this topic

#31 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 21 December 2009 - 06:55 PM

Well what you say about vegetables and water volume and how they compare to other carbs is not being said exactly the way you are saying it as far as I know. Everyone knows vegetables have a high water volume but I don't know of anyone else saying that the effects of this on glucose metabolism is as you say it is. I don't think other low GI foods would be alot worse than vegetables in terms of glucose conversion. Tell me, for example, why chick peas would be worse than broccoli in terms of glucose conversion. Water volume? But what about the anti-glycation flavanoids they contain? Could the latter be the reason they are considered low GI?

Chickpeas (and other pulses) provide their carbohydrate as a starch (polysaccharides). Specifically, 64% of a chickpea is carbohydrate, of which 47% is starch and 6% is soluable fiber). Starch is a polysaccharide carbohydrate consisting of a large number of glucose units (monosaccharides) joined together by glycosidic bonds. Because of the multiple bonds, it takes longer to cleave off the individual monosaccharides during the digestion process. For this reason it is a complex, slower digesting carbohydrate.

Broccoli contains its carbohydrate as primarily trisaccharides and soluable fiber (28%). Trisaccharides are oligosaccharides composed of three monosaccharides with two glycosidic bonds connecting them. Trisaccharides are also considered a type of starch. Oligosaccharides are large molecules and are not broken down and absorbed by the lining of the small intestine as other sugars are. This is because the human body does not produce the enzyme that breaks down oligosaccharides.

So, in this case, broccoli has a higher fiber content per serving and the carbohydrate is relatively undigestable, which makes it superior to those restricting carbohydate. However, if you actually want any kind of substantial food energy from your meals, chickpeas are the obvious winner. There is probably a reason that we didn't start consuming large amounts of broccoli in the neolithic as a primary energy source, and instead focused on fulfilling caloric needs with legumes and grains -- they are better digested.

Edited by Skotkonung, 21 December 2009 - 06:57 PM.


#32 cheesycow5

  • Guest
  • 34 posts
  • -1

Posted 21 December 2009 - 07:09 PM

I give up. The internet has beaten me.


Haha. :)

I believe the burden of proof lies on the grain side of the debate.

Let's think about grains as a drug, and let's call it Grex. It affects the mind and body, so why not? For millions of years, people ran through the forests and deserts and plains and tundras, killing everything in sight. The fuel requirements of these primitive people provided the explanation for this quirky activity. If the humans planned to mate like rabbits, they had to binge on meat every once in a while to keep up their stamina. Ten thousand years ago, Grex was discovered. This drug was a godsend. The tasty Grex quickly quenched the bothersome appetites of all, and resulted in no side effects. Their energy level was higher than ever, since they no longer had to chase their own food, as if they were animals. People finally had the opportunity to sit and enjoy a meal in one location everyday, as fewer families were seen following sheep herds throughout the lands of Spain. The popularity of Grex increased, sweeping the world. Thousands of years passed, and the old way of living disappeared entirely. Anyone who was anyone used Grex.

The problem was that diseases were springing up in a good deal of unfortunate old people. These elderly folk with their families irritatingly demanded an explanation. So explanations were made. They were manufactured. Old Gwen spent too much time in front of the microwave as a child, and now she can't remember anything she's doing, a rather convenient ability, when you think about it. Bob down the street was being punished by God with Parkinson's, the disorder that takes away most of the control you have over your own muscles. Bob and Gwen resigned to their homes, happy to have these great new explanations, even though it meant that their diseases were incurable. At least they knew why they had to suffer, and that's all one can ask for.

Ten thousand years later, Grex is a staple of the world's economy. It has found its way into every nook and cranny of civilization. The crazies that eat a little beef, along with their Grex, even give Grex to the cows they would later eat. The diseases of the last few thousand years still linger, with more presence than ever, but plenty of explanations have been proposed, so the world is hopeful in that regard. A handful of radicals stand out as especially radical, even compared to average radicals. These dissenters propose that Grex may be the final explanation for our diseases. No one has ever thought of that, so we take notice. The radical radicals say they've found the flaw in the ten thousand year study on Grex. No long term testing was ever done. Or if it had been done, we lost the papers and forgot it happened. The RR's revert to the lifestyle of their great, great,..., great grandparents, with pleasant health results. They throw out books such as "1001 Explanations for your Failing Heart!". They spread their radical ideas and many follow suit, giving up the once holy Grex. How long until the absurd becomes the norm, Galileo?

Edited by cheesycow5, 21 December 2009 - 07:56 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#33 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 21 December 2009 - 07:17 PM

Athlete is a general term, and doesn't describe anything. It's pointless to talk about an "athletic diet" without describing the sport of the athlete, the training regimen, and a ton of other variables. The fact that one diet does well for one athlete means absolutely nothing compared to another.


For athletes like sprinter, it's not a good idea for them to be on low-carb, but that more the fault of the sport more than the diet.
But for long distance endurance runners, they would probably reap the advantage if training in keto for prolong period then resting a week before the race to refill their glycogen.

I was surprised recently when I started doing cardio again. Keeping it at a low-intensity jog, it feels like you can go forever without tiring out and running low on glucose. This is probably the way our paleo ancestor went at it since there's not a lot of opportunity to carb-up.

Our hunter-gatherer ancestors almost certainly mostly walked during hunts, with only very short periods of high-intensity effort during the end-chase -- much like a cheetah or lion, or in fact, most stalking predators. Therefore, a high-fat diet served perfectly well for their needs, and over time we genetically adapted to this model of stalking/hunting. My paleo diet serves me perfectly well during all of my sporting activities, such as gym visits, mountain biking (3 hours is typical), snow skiing, martial arts, rock climbing, tennis, and water sports. Never do I feel like I've hit an energy wall, or lack necessary energy. I've yet to hear any paleo-dieter complain of lack of energy -- in fact, quite the opposite...endless energy.

#34 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 21 December 2009 - 08:58 PM

Real, controlled studies are worthless because Calories aren't Calories, words don't mean things, and the laws of thermodynamics have no place in science.

Here's the thing: The human body can up- or down-regulate its metabolism, based on numerous factors, from food to stimulants (ephedrine, for example). For example, everyone knows that CR and fasting both down-regulate metabolism. It appears that a low-carb, high-good-fat (especially saturated fat), and a moderate non-gluten protein diet, allows the body to up- or down-regulate in order to maintain (or seek out) a fit and functional bodyfat level.

Among paleo eaters, it's well accepted that overeating has no apparent negative affect on body fat. If the studies are not conclusive on this yet, I suspect in time they will be. Evolutionarily speaking, our bodies are likely programmed to maintain a fit and functional body-mass composition, one evolutionarily designed for the highest chance of survival. 10% bodyfat for a man, is likely optimal or very close to it, providing enough fat for cushioning and prolonged fasting survival, while not being a burden during hunts and escapes from danger.

#35 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 21 December 2009 - 09:27 PM

I don't have a problem with that argument, as I mentioned in an earlier discussion: http://www.imminst.o...mp;#entry295685

#36 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 21 December 2009 - 10:34 PM

Our hunter-gatherer ancestors almost certainly mostly walked during hunts, with only very short periods of high-intensity effort during the end-chase -- much like a cheetah or lion, or in fact, most stalking predators. Therefore, a high-fat diet served perfectly well for their needs, and over time we genetically adapted to this model of stalking/hunting. My paleo diet serves me perfectly well during all of my sporting activities, such as gym visits, mountain biking (3 hours is typical), snow skiing, martial arts, rock climbing, tennis, and water sports. Never do I feel like I've hit an energy wall, or lack necessary energy. I've yet to hear any paleo-dieter complain of lack of energy -- in fact, quite the opposite...endless energy.

Look at these quotes from raw vegans:

"I have been a veggie most of my life, then a vegan and now a raw vegan. I cannot believe the change in my energy level, my spiritual condition and my connectedness to life."

"I too, have become a raw foodist. It has changed my life, my appearance, and I have more energy."

"Life should be full of energy, life and happiness. Raw foods seem to promote this end."

"Vegan raw-fooder since 1996. My energy level is far superior to most of the cooked-food eaters that I know."

Your evidence here is completely anecdotal and obfuscated with dogma. Lots of people on their choice diet experience a boost of "energy." Hell, I know competitive athletes (I use this term generally to describe the rock climbers, bikers, runners, that I know) who have plenty of stamina despite consumption of sugar laden Gatorade, grains, processed meats, etc. In fact, a co-worker of mine ran the Boston marathon on his 58th birthday (he's ran it several times). Guess what he eats for lunch? A turkey sandwich, a small bag of potato chips, and a chocolate chip cookie. He eats this religiously, every day that I've known him. I'm sure these individuals would equally swear that their diet is superior, or at least more than adequate, to help them train and compete.

My point is that we should try and justify our lifestyle decisions using peer-reviewed research. On this topic, a paleo type diet might be great for optimizing short term bio-markers, but what about long term survival?

Have you checked your IGF1? Your testosterone and DHT? I would be curious to know how many years on a high fat, carbohydrate restricted diet as affected these indicators for longevity.

#37 HaloTeK

  • Guest
  • 254 posts
  • 7
  • Location:chicago

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:01 AM

My point is that we should try and justify our lifestyle decisions using peer-reviewed research. On this topic, a paleo type diet might be great for optimizing short term bio-markers, but what about long term survival?

Have you checked your IGF1? Your testosterone and DHT? I would be curious to know how many years on a high fat, carbohydrate restricted diet as affected these indicators for longevity.


Skot, I'm been talking about the same things for years. My problem is, I feel crappy on grains (headaches and creaky knee pains) and tubers (same as grains). I have to find alternatives to high protein foods etc (my body also does not like ultra high fat). Crazy thing is, I've never felt shitty with sugar and high fat foods together.

#38 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:27 AM

Skot, I'm been talking about the same things for years. My problem is, I feel crappy on grains (headaches and creaky knee pains) and tubers (same as grains). I have to find alternatives to high protein foods etc (my body also does not like ultra high fat). Crazy thing is, I've never felt shitty with sugar and high fat foods together.


That's quite interesting. Did you give the Low-Carb/High-Fat diet a few weeks ?

It's also possible that your liver is struggling to generate glucose and such. Do you know what your liver enzymes are upto ?

#39 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:34 AM

My point is that we should try and justify our lifestyle decisions using peer-reviewed research. On this topic, a paleo type diet might be great for optimizing short term bio-markers, but what about long term survival?

Have you checked your IGF1? Your testosterone and DHT? I would be curious to know how many years on a high fat, carbohydrate restricted diet as affected these indicators for longevity.


Skot, I'm been talking about the same things for years. My problem is, I feel crappy on grains (headaches and creaky knee pains) and tubers (same as grains). I have to find alternatives to high protein foods etc (my body also does not like ultra high fat). Crazy thing is, I've never felt shitty with sugar and high fat foods together.

In my opinion, many characteristics of the paleo diet are admirable. The fact that it emphasizes consumption of nutrient dense organic leafy greens, berries, raw nuts, and fresh fruit. Or perhaps that many potential allergens, high-GI and inflammation producing foods are removed from regular consumption. Its nice to see SFA and MUFA being a big part of the diet. Also good to see an emphasis on animal well-fare and a reduction of factory farming.

Where I disagree is when people say you can't get fat on a paleo diet. This is obviously a fallacy. There is no magic diet where you can eat tons of surplus calories and stay at 8% bodyfat - not even a ketogenic diet. I also think that calling it the paleo diet is absolutely ridiculous. Does anyone here really think that the apples, blueberries, grassfed beef, broccoli, cabbage, etc hasn't been somehow touched by millenia of agriculture? My guess is most of these foods aren't anywhere close to where they were during the upper paleolithic. Between now and then, enough time has passed to breed corn from grass, or large tomatoes from a small poisonous fruit. I think we should refer to this type of restricted diet as Optimized Nutrition (the latter part of CRON), or perhaps like Mark Sisson says, "Primal Blueprint" since only derivatives of the original foods remain.

I also think we, as life extentionists, should start using better methods of discriminating / removing foods than "it wasn't available 10,000 years ago." We should use methods that are more pro-life extension and based in published research.

Edited by Skotkonung, 22 December 2009 - 12:34 AM.

  • like x 1

#40 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 22 December 2009 - 01:17 AM

Great post, Skot. I agree that it is fallacious to say you can't get fat on a paleo diet, but would you agree that it is very easy to get fat on a diet rich in sugars and high GI carbs, and a lot harder to get fat on a paleo diet? Thermodynamics has yet to be overturned, but there are some powerful non-thermodynamic factors at work here, ranging from our environment being awash in cheap sugar to the variable effects on satiety of different macronutrient ratios.

#41 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 22 December 2009 - 01:30 AM

Harder in a non-controlled, free-living environment...or harder when we actually account for energy?

#42 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 22 December 2009 - 01:50 AM

Great post, Skot. I agree that it is fallacious to say you can't get fat on a paleo diet, but would you agree that it is very easy to get fat on a diet rich in sugars and high GI carbs, and a lot harder to get fat on a paleo diet? Thermodynamics has yet to be overturned, but there are some powerful non-thermodynamic factors at work here, ranging from our environment being awash in cheap sugar to the variable effects on satiety of different macronutrient ratios.

Definitely. If you are going isocaloric, the high GI carbohydrate diet will probably cause more fat accumulation from insulin desensitization.

But it is a bad comparison. What about a high carb (above 50% of cal) raw vegan diet to a high (above 50% of cal) fat "paleo" diet? Neither would spike insulin or blood glucose as much as a standard American diet. Both have their high insulin index foods, neither use foods particularly high in the GI. I think at that point, you are already so diet conscious, that it is a moot point.

Edited by Skotkonung, 22 December 2009 - 02:10 AM.


#43 cheesycow5

  • Guest
  • 34 posts
  • -1

Posted 22 December 2009 - 08:15 AM

My point is that we should try and justify our lifestyle decisions using peer-reviewed research. On this topic, a paleo type diet might be great for optimizing short term bio-markers, but what about long term survival?

Have you checked your IGF1? Your testosterone and DHT? I would be curious to know how many years on a high fat, carbohydrate restricted diet as affected these indicators for longevity.


Skot, I'm been talking about the same things for years. My problem is, I feel crappy on grains (headaches and creaky knee pains) and tubers (same as grains). I have to find alternatives to high protein foods etc (my body also does not like ultra high fat). Crazy thing is, I've never felt shitty with sugar and high fat foods together.

In my opinion, many characteristics of the paleo diet are admirable. The fact that it emphasizes consumption of nutrient dense organic leafy greens, berries, raw nuts, and fresh fruit. Or perhaps that many potential allergens, high-GI and inflammation producing foods are removed from regular consumption. Its nice to see SFA and MUFA being a big part of the diet. Also good to see an emphasis on animal well-fare and a reduction of factory farming.

Where I disagree is when people say you can't get fat on a paleo diet. This is obviously a fallacy. There is no magic diet where you can eat tons of surplus calories and stay at 8% bodyfat - not even a ketogenic diet. I also think that calling it the paleo diet is absolutely ridiculous. Does anyone here really think that the apples, blueberries, grassfed beef, broccoli, cabbage, etc hasn't been somehow touched by millenia of agriculture? My guess is most of these foods aren't anywhere close to where they were during the upper paleolithic. Between now and then, enough time has passed to breed corn from grass, or large tomatoes from a small poisonous fruit. I think we should refer to this type of restricted diet as Optimized Nutrition (the latter part of CRON), or perhaps like Mark Sisson says, "Primal Blueprint" since only derivatives of the original foods remain.

I also think we, as life extentionists, should start using better methods of discriminating / removing foods than "it wasn't available 10,000 years ago." We should use methods that are more pro-life extension and based in published research.


It seems you misunderstand the timespans of evolution. We stopped eating like our ancestors only ten thousand years ago. No plants have changed so much they are unrecognizable from the plants of yesterday.

#44 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 22 December 2009 - 08:22 AM

I think that people are being unnecessarily restrictive! Eating mostly raw foods will normalize your weight. Check out this guy! Listen to what he says. Hes over 40 now and running races, stair climbing and beating people half his age. I could not imagine eating high fat, because I love to eat a very wide range of foods... all kinds of fruits, vegetables, nuts, wholegrains, beans, whey etc etc..... Wasting calories on fat seems a waste xD I can't ever be fat eating raw because its just TOO MUCH FOOD!

Tim got sick as a vegan, but felt great when going raw. Big difference between your average vegetarian or vegan eating junk and those eating a healthy raw diet!

Edited by Matt, 22 December 2009 - 08:28 AM.


#45 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 22 December 2009 - 09:52 AM

It seems you misunderstand the timespans of evolution. We stopped eating like our ancestors only ten thousand years ago. No plants have changed so much they are unrecognizable from the plants of yesterday.

Umm, it seems like you missed the amount of change that can occur in only 50 years:

Article: Fruits, vegetables not as nutritious as 50 years ago

Referring to Wilson (1994), Ströhle et al. argue that "the number of generations that a species existed in the old environment was irrelevant, and that the response to the change of the environment of a species would depend on the hereditability of the traits, the intensity of selection and the number of generations that selection acts." They state that if the diet of Neolithic agriculturalists had been in discordance with their physiology, then this would have created a selection pressure for evolutionary change and modern humans, such as Europeans, whose ancestors have subsisted on agrarian diets for 400–500 generations should be somehow adequately adapted to it. Or could it be that agriculturists adapted fruits, vegetables, or grains to meet their needs? Or perhaps a little of both?

Obviously some adaptation has occurred, as is evident by many people's ability to process gluten and lactose.

I suggest you review this list of domesticated plants:
http://en.wikipedia....sticated_plants

"This is a list of plants that have been domesticated by humans. The list includes species or larger formal and informal botanical categories that include at least some domesticated individuals.

To be considered domesticated, a population of plants must have their behavior, life cycle, or appearance significantly altered as a result of being under humans control for multiple generations. (Please see the main article on domestication for more information.)"

Edited by Skotkonung, 22 December 2009 - 09:56 AM.


#46 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 22 December 2009 - 10:06 AM

I think that people are being unnecessarily restrictive! Eating mostly raw foods will normalize your weight. Check out this guy! Listen to what he says. Hes over 40 now and running races, stair climbing and beating people half his age. I could not imagine eating high fat, because I love to eat a very wide range of foods... all kinds of fruits, vegetables, nuts, wholegrains, beans, whey etc etc..... Wasting calories on fat seems a waste xD I can't ever be fat eating raw because its just TOO MUCH FOOD!

Tim got sick as a vegan, but felt great when going raw. Big difference between your average vegetarian or vegan eating junk and those eating a healthy raw diet!


Cool. I thought he was maybe 32 or so. And he didn't start till he was close to 40 hmm? More visual evidence that raw food diets work. Matt, I am wondering at what percentage your current CR regimen is raw? My diet, while not specifically CRON is about 80% raw at this time. I notice the more of these types of foods I do incorporate into my diet the better I feel and the more energetic I am. The foods I currently cook are eggs, oatmeal and plantains and chick peas, which I don't eat every day. When I cook vegetables I very lightly steam them for 2-3 minutes, which is the closest you can get to eating them raw while applying heat to them. I am in the conversion process. I eventually plan to try a 100% raw diet.

#47 e Volution

  • Guest
  • 937 posts
  • 280
  • Location:spaceship earth

Posted 22 December 2009 - 03:21 PM

...More visual evidence that raw food diets work...


Who cares if it works? The typical SAD/Western diet works! I know plenty of people very athletic, energetic and 'healthy' on SAD. My grandmother is 92 and apart from some arthritis is still doing very well on it.

We want to figure out what is OPTIMAL! And it is very unlikely to be such a blanket approach as a raw food diet. Particularly because a raw food diet is often vegetarian/vegan and not omnivorous. I mean, are you guys not familiar with the ~2.5 million year history of our species using stone tools to kill animals and then fire to cook them?

And you know what, I don't even have a problem with the idea of a raw food diet, as long as it it includes meat. I think I could construct an extremely healthy raw diet of fruits, vegetables, raw milk, sashimi and carpaccio. But that is irrelevant. It is implausible that there does not exist a food that is rendered more nutritious or 'optimal' in a non-raw state. And at that point the entire base argument of the diet is rendered null and void.

#48 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 22 December 2009 - 04:21 PM

We want to figure out what is OPTIMAL! And it is very unlikely to be such a blanket approach as a raw food diet. Particularly because a raw food diet is often vegetarian/vegan and not omnivorous. I mean, are you guys not familiar with the ~2.5 million year history of our species using stone tools to kill animals and then fire to cook them?

You're right not always raw; but the blanket statement "as raw as possible" (meaning uncooked) is pretty much state of the art and describes the current science best.

And you know what, I don't even have a problem with the idea of a raw food diet, as long as it it includes meat. I think I could construct an extremely healthy raw diet of fruits, vegetables, raw milk, sashimi and carpaccio. But that is irrelevant.

Yeah, I also think that's irrelevant, although, I am wondering how you arrived at the conclusion to include meat? Additionally, there's no need to consume raw milk as the science indicates that there's no difference between raw and pasteurised, for instance. Furthermore, it does suggest that red meat is unhealthy.  :)

It is implausible that there does not exist a food that is rendered more nutritious or 'optimal' in a non-raw state. And at that point the entire base argument of the diet is rendered null and void.

Heh? Only (some) idiotic raw foodists who think diet is religion suggest to go all-raw in the strictest sense of the word. We're not dogmatists, hence the criticism does not apply. The idea is not only implausible, it can be quickly proven by self-experimentation that some foods should be cooked: I'd not eat raw beans and I do prefer my tomatoes cooked -- but this is completely unrelated to the 'base argument', which is never about going all-raw (that is raw-food/veganism propaganda).

You should ignore fountain's "100% raw" musings which you probably responed to; those are not reflective of the science-based approaches most of us take. :)

Edited by kismet, 22 December 2009 - 04:31 PM.


#49 Ron

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • 13

Posted 22 December 2009 - 04:45 PM

Additionally, there's no need to consume raw milk as the science indicates that there's no difference between raw and pasteurised, for instance.


I searched the forum but couldn't find a reference for this. Could you throw me a bone?

Here's a pretty interesting discussion with primatologist Richard Wrangham about the benefits of cooking:
http://www.sciencefr...hives/200908285
One interesting point: cooked eggs are nearly completely digested whereas raw eggs are only 55-64% digested.

#50 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 22 December 2009 - 04:53 PM

Where I disagree is when people say you can't get fat on a paleo diet. This is obviously a fallacy. There is no magic diet where you can eat tons of surplus calories and stay at 8% bodyfat - not even a ketogenic diet. I also think that calling it the paleo diet is absolutely ridiculous. Does anyone here really think that the apples, blueberries, grassfed beef, broccoli, cabbage, etc hasn't been somehow touched by millenia of agriculture? My guess is most of these foods aren't anywhere close to where they were during the upper paleolithic.


PAY THIS MAN

#51 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 22 December 2009 - 04:57 PM

Where I disagree is when people say you can't get fat on a paleo diet. This is obviously a fallacy.

Of course you can get fat by over-eating. But, it appears that it's much easier to get fat when you're body in not getting the foods it most desires. The body appears to be able to self-adjust its metabolism (within a reasonable range) when eating a paleo diet. This explains why we do not need to eat the exact same number of cals each day, week or month, and can maintain a healthy body mass composition. I never count cals, for example. Many days I consume 3500-4000 cals (huge, cheesy omelets filled with bacon and sausage plus big protein shakes filled with high-fat coconut milk).

It's crazy to think that our body cannot self-adjust based on cals consumed. The issue is that, in particular, grains, unhealthy vegetable oils and fructose all throw this system out-of-whack. Too many carbs overall, will too. Our body is not designed to rely too heavily on insulin production, and when it does, we break down, get fatter, and age more quickly.

#52 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 22 December 2009 - 07:24 PM

Additionally, there's no need to consume raw milk as the science indicates that there's no difference between raw and pasteurised, for instance.


I searched the forum but couldn't find a reference for this. Could you throw me a bone?

I am taking the CML measurements as a proxy of other temperature-related toxins. I think that's a fair assessment based on the duration of the whole process (and I am not particularly convinced by any other supposed benefits of raw milk)

#53 gregandbeaker

  • Guest
  • 184 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 22 December 2009 - 08:02 PM

Additionally, there's no need to consume raw milk as the science indicates that there's no difference between raw and pasteurised, for instance.


I searched the forum but couldn't find a reference for this. Could you throw me a bone?

I am taking the CML measurements as a proxy of other temperature-related toxins. I think that's a fair assessment based on the duration of the whole process (and I am not particularly convinced by any other supposed benefits of raw milk)



Isn't it true though that raw milk has quite a few enzymes in it that get destroyed during the pasteurization process including the enzyme that helps digest it?

#54 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 22 December 2009 - 10:54 PM

...More visual evidence that raw food diets work...


Who cares if it works? The typical SAD/Western diet works! I know plenty of people very athletic, energetic and 'healthy' on SAD. My grandmother is 92 and apart from some arthritis is still doing very well on it.

We want to figure out what is OPTIMAL! And it is very unlikely to be such a blanket approach as a raw food diet. Particularly because a raw food diet is often vegetarian/vegan and not omnivorous. I mean, are you guys not familiar with the ~2.5 million year history of our species using stone tools to kill animals and then fire to cook them?

And you know what, I don't even have a problem with the idea of a raw food diet, as long as it it includes meat. I think I could construct an extremely healthy raw diet of fruits, vegetables, raw milk, sashimi and carpaccio. But that is irrelevant. It is implausible that there does not exist a food that is rendered more nutritious or 'optimal' in a non-raw state. And at that point the entire base argument of the diet is rendered null and void.


Everyone I have ever seen who was on a raw food diet for many years before looks much younger than most people their ages. So the diet either makes you look younger or it curtails some of the internal processes of senescence, thus making you look young. I am guessing the latter.

#55 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 22 December 2009 - 10:57 PM

Where I disagree is when people say you can't get fat on a paleo diet. This is obviously a fallacy.

Of course you can get fat by over-eating. But, it appears that it's much easier to get fat when you're body in not getting the foods it most desires. The body appears to be able to self-adjust its metabolism (within a reasonable range) when eating a paleo diet. This explains why we do not need to eat the exact same number of cals each day, week or month, and can maintain a healthy body mass composition. I never count cals, for example. Many days I consume 3500-4000 cals (huge, cheesy omelets filled with bacon and sausage plus big protein shakes filled with high-fat coconut milk).

It's crazy to think that our body cannot self-adjust based on cals consumed. The issue is that, in particular, grains, unhealthy vegetable oils and fructose all throw this system out-of-whack. Too many carbs overall, will too. Our body is not designed to rely too heavily on insulin production, and when it does, we break down, get fatter, and age more quickly.


This is a loaded claim with not much to back it up. Anecdotally just look at anyone who has been on a raw food vegan diet for any number of years. They typically look way younger than anyone else their age. I have not seen any Paleo dieters over 40 who look young for their ages. I have seen many raw food vegetarians who have. And I am sure their diets are higher on the carb scale than paleo dieters, or maybe about the same. So then, is it phytonutrient uptake, with a good healthy dose of isoflavones and anti-oxidants? Or is it simply a better diet for longevity?

Edited by TheFountain, 22 December 2009 - 10:58 PM.


#56 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 22 December 2009 - 11:07 PM

And you know what, I don't even have a problem with the idea of a raw food diet, as long as it it includes meat.


There is no reason to include meat as 1-it is linked to high IGF-1 levels. Even if it is not meat per se but protein in general, you cannot have a low protein meat based diet, it is impossible. 2-Dihydrotestosterone which is raised by eating meat, thus contributing significantly to MPB, benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate cancer and perhaps a series of other things we arenot yet aware of. Meat is not necessary in todays shop around world. It was never the meat our ancestors wanted it was the amino acid profile, which can easily be gotten elsewhere in todays world. We can shop around.

It is implausible that there does not exist a food that is rendered more nutritious or 'optimal' in a non-raw state. And at that point the entire base argument of the diet is rendered null and void.

Or maybe you are making shit up because you like to eat meat, and the only way you can eat it is through cooking.

Edited by TheFountain, 22 December 2009 - 11:13 PM.


#57 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 23 December 2009 - 12:54 AM

Where I disagree is when people say you can't get fat on a paleo diet. This is obviously a fallacy.

Of course you can get fat by over-eating. But, it appears that it's much easier to get fat when you're body in not getting the foods it most desires. The body appears to be able to self-adjust its metabolism (within a reasonable range) when eating a paleo diet. This explains why we do not need to eat the exact same number of cals each day, week or month, and can maintain a healthy body mass composition. I never count cals, for example. Many days I consume 3500-4000 cals (huge, cheesy omelets filled with bacon and sausage plus big protein shakes filled with high-fat coconut milk).

It's crazy to think that our body cannot self-adjust based on cals consumed. The issue is that, in particular, grains, unhealthy vegetable oils and fructose all throw this system out-of-whack. Too many carbs overall, will too. Our body is not designed to rely too heavily on insulin production, and when it does, we break down, get fatter, and age more quickly.

That seems paradoxical to the evolutionary argument for the paleo diet? How would having a metabolism that rate adjusts itself for caloric intake be conducive to survival? Imagine yourself as a hunter-gatherer in Ice-age Europe. After several days of sustaining yourself on some pemmican and your own bodyfat, you and your tribe finally manage to fell a large herd mammal. Without knowing when or how your next meal will arrive, you and your group devour this animal over the next several days - nothing is left to waste. Now tell me, why would it be evolutionary advantageous to have a metabolism that up-regulated itself to discard some or all of these excess calories instead of store them as valuable adipose?

IF the body does discard these calories, where do they go? Certainly increased non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) can't account for thousands of calories above your basal metabolic needs, especially since an hour of walking consumes less than 150 calories on an untrained individual (less when trained). And if the basal energy requirements are increasing beyond what is considered "normal," tell me how is that a good thing? Doesn't it imply the body is running less efficiently, which is antagonistic to the idea of ketones being a sort of superfuel (making the heart and organs run more efficiently). The whole concept of metabolic advantage when on a hyper-caloric fat based diet doesn't seem to jive with some of the other tenants of the paleo diet.

While I agree with you that it may seem like you're eating thousands of extra calories, a more likely explanation is that you are simply eating a normal amount of calories averaged over several days or weeks or are deceptively full. I also eat a high fat diet (above 50% as fat), and it seems like I am eating more calories than I need, but when I plot my actual intake against CRON-o-meter, my diet comes out to less than my caloric requirements. That is because fat is satiating. I'll have some coconut milk blended with whey, berries, and 100% dark chocolate. It is a high calorie meal. I then will eat raw veggies and maybe a small piece of slow cooked meat in the next several hours. By dinner I tally up what I have eaten and I have only consumed around 1500 calories, much less than the 2500-2700 calories needed by my active lifestyle. With only a few hours left in the day, I am forced to binge feed myself around my gym session just to maintain weight.

#58 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 23 December 2009 - 12:59 AM

It is implausible that there does not exist a food that is rendered more nutritious or 'optimal' in a non-raw state. And at that point the entire base argument of the diet is rendered null and void.

Or maybe you are making shit up because you like to eat meat, and the only way you can eat it is through cooking.

Some foods must be cooked to be consumed safely. For instance, many legumes are poisonous without treatment by cooking. Even eggs have compounds that make them dangerous if consumed raw and in large quantities. [source]

#59 frederickson

  • Guest
  • 281 posts
  • 50

Posted 23 December 2009 - 02:27 AM

And for some reason glucose is still considered the 'preferred fuel' of the body by 'athletic types'.


this is a huge misconception. i have put PLENTY of my athletes on ketogenic diets, and have talked to many others who realize carbs/glucose are not necessary for athletic performance. i myself am on a paleolithic-style ketogenic diet and deadlift, squat, and perform HIIT.

#60 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 23 December 2009 - 03:25 AM

Anecdotally just look at anyone who has been on a raw food vegan diet for any number of years. They typically look way younger than anyone else their age. I have not seen any Paleo dieters over 40 who look young for their ages. I have seen many raw food vegetarians who have. And I am sure their diets are higher on the carb scale than paleo dieters, or maybe about the same. So then, is it phytonutrient uptake, with a good healthy dose of isoflavones and anti-oxidants? Or is it simply a better diet for longevity?

Helen Vlassara's research would say that the advantage of the raw diet is substantially reduced endogenous (oops) exogenous AGEs. Apparently they are a lot worse for us than most people suspect. I'm trying to move my diet in the raw direction. I just bought a nice slow cooker yesterday, in fact.

Edit: fixed a wee error...

Edited by niner, 03 March 2010 - 09:52 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users