7 replies to this topic

[Pablo M]

Read about the paleolithic diet in Oz Garcia's book and decided to try it out. After 5 days, I feel like I have consistently high energy levels, not up and down like before. The diet is basically a grain-free natural diet similar to the one eaten by paleolithic humans. Seems to make sense, from an evolutionary point of view.

Thoughts?

[scottl]

1. There is no one diet (or supplement regimen, or set-rep scheme in lifting..) that is optimal for everyone.

2. Getting rid of grains (assuming that you are not eating candy bars) means you are generally eating lower glycemic foods which means less highs and lows in your blood sugar. Also less....damage to the body from high blood sugar levels.

3. Grains are tricky in that whole grains contain fibers and other substances which can be health promoting, but for many people grains are best avoided. I can say more about this but need to go now.

One way to see how you do with foods is trial and error (avoid them..eat them...rinse repeat).

[DJS]

Hey dantecubit,

I developed a similar line of reasoning around a year ago, but was subsequently talked out of it. The thread can be found HERE.

I am currently on a modified Omega-3/zone diet which I believe is safer and addresses an important dietary issue -- balanced insulin levels.

Later [thumb]

DonS

[exapted]

The paleolithic diet is theoretically useful, but practically useless for the practitioner.

Paleolithic humans were not necessarily free of deficiencies in general. It could even be true that every single band/tribe was deficient in some way, but over time our genes were selected for among the ones who reproduced most successfully. What we are genetically adapted to is not longevity. Early sexual maturation might have been a genetic advantage in paleolithic times, but it is a disadvantage with respect to longevity, and the diseases we see happening in mid-life probably didn't have much impact on the lives of people in paleolithic times.

In paleolithic times, people ate uncotaminated meat with higher levels of omega 3 fatty acids, and lower levels of omega 6 and saturated fatty acids than the meat available in supermarkets today. Fish was not a major component of most people's diets in paleolithic times. So in order to eat a paleolithic diet, one would need to eat free range eggs and free range game animals.

The fruits and vegetables available today, even in organic farms, are not the same as those consumed in paleolithic times. It would be hard to even approximate an authentic paleolithic diet.

I think its useful to recognize what our bodies are probably adapted for, but also realize that we are not genetically adapted to longevity and so our diet should not necessarily be that to which we are genetically adapted.

One thing about whole grains: Some are much better than others. For instance, I like to cook a cake made from wheat germ, whole wheat, buckwheat and oat bran. That certainly gives me a very slow release of glucose in my blood stream, as well as a great deal of fiber. Rice is another story, but brown rice is acceptable for the great majority.

Fat and protein intake are probably both inversely related to lifespan. Fat intake, assuming essential fatty acids are adequate in the diet, serves to hinder optimal blood flow and increase free radical damage. Whole grains can provide a low glycemic and nutritious alternative to excessive fat and protein. Legumes are even better in this regard.

[scottl]

"Whole grains can provide a low glycemic and nutritious alternative to excessive fat and protein."

This reads like advertising copy e.g. something strait from the PETA web page. Sorry but what you describe will not be optimal for a significant percentage of the population--including me. A significant percentage of the population does not do well eating wheat, and many would do well....not eating much grains (Note I am not suggesting that this is true of everyone).

1. If you state that protein can be excessive, I'd have to say I am skeptical--certainly within any reasonable bound of what could be consumed by real food. What is your evidence for this? If you are going to tell me high protein diets are bad for the kidneys....that is right up there with vit c causes kidney stones. Please provide evidense that "high" protein diets are bad for kidney health in people who have normal kidneys to begin with.

2. "Fat intake, assuming essential fatty acids are adequate in the diet, serves to hinder optimal blood flow and increase free radical damage." Free radical damage can be minimized with adequate antioxidants. If one consumes fats in the form of nuts, fatty fish, olive and canola oil....I'm skeptical that one is going to harm one's arteries. What are you basing "hinder optimal blood flow and increase free radical damage" on?

[eternaltraveler]

1. If you state that protein can be excessive, I'd have to say I am skeptical--certainly within any reasonable bound of what could be consumed by real food. What is your evidence for this? If you are going to tell me high protein diets are bad for the kidneys....that is right up there with vit c causes kidney stones. Please provide evidense that "high" protein diets are bad for kidney health in people who have normal kidneys to begin with.

I am aware of problems body builders who also do steriods have with their kidneys while taking ridiculous protien dosages.

I agree it isn't something that's going to come up with normal people eating real food.

[scottl]

The issue is not just that what they speak of is not harmful, it is that the diet they are trying to....convince us is bad for people is one that a number of people (again me included) thrive on.

[reason]

I experimented with the paleodiet on the way to CR; I think it's chief virtue is as a way to get typical poor eaters to cut out sugar and processed junk from their intake. If you cut out those items and eat any sort of balanced diet out of what is left, you're in a better place than where you started.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org