89 replies to this topic

[mikela]

In summary, a very

low carbohydrate diet resulted in profound alterations in

fatty acid composition and reduced inflamation compared

to a low fat diet.

 

http://www.cnpp.usda...the2008-169.pdf

 

Edited by mikela, 11 July 2014 - 04:34 AM.

[Brafarality]

My paleo diet for the last 12+ years:

o High-quality mammal meats, natural grass-fed when possible.
o High-quality turkey and chicken meats and sausage.
o Lots of eggs (mostly meat & veggie filled omelets).
o (Unfortunately, I don't like seafood.)
o Lots of salad vegetables (which are naturally very low carb).
o Potatoes and sweet potatoes occasionally.
o Berries a few times a week, but no larger fruits.
o 15-20 grams very dark chocolate (with coconut oil) daily.
o Very little cheese and dairy.
o For nuts, only macadamia nuts, as a snack.
o I eat hummus (I mix in whey powder and olive oil to boost protein and fat) as a snack sometimes, with potato chips cooked in avocado oil.
o Start each day with coffee, just a little cream and stevia.
o I drink a lot of unsweetened ice tea during the day.
o Never fruit juices, sodas, sports drinks or energy drinks.
o Rarely alcoholic drinks.
o Almost complete avoidance of grains, except moderate rice.
o Rarely any vegetable oils (unavoidable if I eat out).

I never eat a meal/snack that doesn't contain at least 20-25% high-quality protein content. Practically never use protein shakes or protein bars (Quest is the only protein bar I'll eat).

Never count calories. Maintain OUTSTANDING health stats (which I check yearly--over 125 health markers), and 9-10% body fat.

 

Hi, Duke Nukem. Your diet caught my eye because it is a polar opposite of my own in just about every way.  I believe that Paleo supporters may miss one important fact about human digestion - it lies somewhere between herbivore and carnivore. No cud chewing or second stomach to break down leaves and grasses. But, no abbreviated 10 foot tract to prevent the putrefaction of meat either. IMHO, our compromise of a digestive tract evolved so that humans could handle whatever they came across as scavengers, beach-combers, hunters-gatherers and so on. But, that does not mean that meat and leaves are ideal for human digestion, just that our digestion is a middle ground to handle both extremes to some moderate degree. Foods that digest best over that middle range digestive tract are probably best for humans, foods such as grains, nuts, root vegetables, fruits and legumes. They best fit those middle-ground omnivorous digestive tracts. Animal products and leaves/grasses are the worst end of things [too hard to digest or need to exit quickly]- our digestion compromised to handle them, but both are inefficiently and poorly processed. Not sure if there are studies of the negative effects of putrefying meat and undigested leaves in human digestion beyond praise of insoluble fiber. Just my opinion derived from personal experience and some degree of casual research and knowledge.

Edited by Brafarality, 11 July 2014 - 05:13 AM.

[Duchykins]

In the book "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living" they mention the Triglyceride to HDL-C ratio as being a good indicator of IR.  They also dispell some of the myths I see in this thread regarding saturated fats.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16054467
 
I used to be a vegan who transitioned to a ketogenic diet.  I wanted to compare this ratio and recently got my results in.  Vegan = 2.3.  Keto = 1.5.  I mention this here because I eat about 2 eggs (free range) every other day on the keto diet as well as several slices of bacon (uncured, nitrate free).  I generally consume moderate amounts of protein and plenty of vegetables and salads with plenty of olive oil.  My HDL doubled on the keto diet.  My weight went from approximately 175lbs to 160lbs on the vegan diet for about a year.  Then I transitioned to low carb and my weight assymptoted at 147lbs (close to my college weight) for the past year.  My results correlate well with DukeNukem's results.  Sorry if that upsets the apple cart.
 

I would get sick on a diet like that. Those eggs alone, ouch. Eggs had to go, I can only have one on occasion. What's nitrate-free bacon? Something actually having no nitrates or just no added nitrates while having naturally ocurring nitrates. Sometimes the 'no added nitrates' products actually contain more nitrates than those with added, because of various plant ingredients that naturally contain nitrates. This I had to learn the hard way years ago when, being a migraineur, I had to excise a lot of high nitrate foods from my diet in addition to a lot of other foods.

Just a handful of months ago I radically changed a diet I've had for more than ten years that was incidentally very high carb, moderate-high fat and low protein, especially low animal protein. It's actually still pretty high carb and moderately fat, but in different ways. I tried to make it lower in carbs but didn't get very far before feeling the brain fog. I don't know if it was really brain fog but I definitely felt stupid, it was more difficult to problem solve and remember things I've read or where I last saw an object, that last one was most damning and disturbing because my visual memory is very very verrry good normally and sort of infamous in my family (however my auditory memory is shyte, can't win them all I suppose!). It was a big deal because it wasn't like I had some retail gig where I didn't have to think very hard in order to do a good job, I deal in philosophy, logic and biology daily and need to be on top of my game. Then I realized how stupid I was being by trying to cut carbs and being restrictive. Dietary restrictiveness is what got me into trouble in the first place. We humans digest and make use of carbs very efficiently, because our ancestors had been doing it long before they were recognizably human, and we never stopped eating starchy foods so we never 'lost' the genes for handling them efficiently. We are very well adapted to using carbohydrates, better than many other primates, and it's plausible it contributed to our intellectual development as significantly as meat and cooking did.

I had a lipid panel recently and my cholesterol is as perfect as it was when I was 20 years old. Hell I just went through a huge battery of tests recently looking for an answer to a serious problem I've had recently (turned out to be funamentally caused by a substandard generic prescription). Thyroid, liver, kidneys, pancreas, different heart scans, no obvious sign of a decade long crap diet or that I was more than 20 years. No obesity, blood pressure or diabetic concerns. And hugely sedentary outside of a small stint in the military, I'm pretty bookish and nerdy. I do not and have never really exercised seriously except for the bare minimum I could get away with in the Army and a little bit before that when I was a lifeguard. Nothing since then, and we're talking a 7-8 year stretch. Only good thing that can be said really is no alcohol use or drug abuse whatsoever. Perhaps all that would have caught up with me in a very bad way if it went on for another ten years, who is to say really? That's just genetics, for better or worse. Worse in some ways, better in others. They make us predisposed to responding in certain ways to different diets and lifestyles. My biggest problem with that old diet wasn't the carb-fat-protein ratio, or what kind of fats and carbs, it was that I wasn't getting enough of the nutrients found only in abundance in meats/fish and I wasn't supplementing anything because I wasn't trying to be vegetarian. I needed to supplement because I was being so restrictive, not just of meats, in my fear of migraine triggers.

So what am I trying to say, really? There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all diet, and that's true even if you set aside those who have various medical conditions or food sensitivities that require certain diets.

[Duchykins]

My paleo diet for the last 12+ years:

o High-quality mammal meats, natural grass-fed when possible.
o High-quality turkey and chickeun meats and sausage.
o Lots of eggs (mostly meat & veggie filled omelets).
o (Unfortunately, I don't like seafood.)
o Lots of salad vegetables (which are naturally very low carb).
o Potatoes and sweet potatoes occasionally.
o Berries a few times a week, but no larger fruits.
o 15-20 grams very dark chocolate (with coconut oil) daily.
o Very little cheese and dairy.
o For nuts, only macadamia nuts, as a snack.
o I eat hummus (I mix in whey powder and olive oil to boost protein and fat) as a snack sometimes, with potato chips cooked in avocado oil.
o Start each day with coffee, just a little cream and stevia.
o I drink a lot of unsweetened ice tea during the day.
o Never fruit juices, sodas, sports drinks or energy drinks.
o Rarely alcoholic drinks.
o Almost complete avoidance of grains, except moderate rice.
o Rarely any vegetable oils (unavoidable if I eat out).

I never eat a meal/snack that doesn't contain at least 20-25% high-quality protein content. Practically never use protein shakes or protein bars (Quest is the only protein bar I'll eat).

Never count calories. Maintain OUTSTANDING health stats (which I check yearly--over 125 health markers), and 9-10% body fat.

 
Hi, Duke Nukem. Your diet caught my eye because it is a polar opposite of my own in just about every way.  I believe that Paleo supporters may miss one important fact about human digestion - it lies somewhere between herbivore and carnivore. No cud chewing or second stomach to break down leaves and grasses. But, no abbreviated 10 foot tract to prevent the putrefaction of meat either. IMHO, our compromise of a digestive tract evolved so that humans could handle whatever they came across as scavengers, beach-combers, hunters-gatherers and so on. But, that does not mean that meat and leaves are ideal for human digestion, just that our digestion is a middle ground to handle both extremes to some moderate degree. Foods that digest best over that middle range digestive tract are probably best for humans, foods such as grains, nuts, root vegetables, fruits and legumes. They best fit those middle-ground omnivorous digestive tracts. Animal products and leaves/grasses are the worst end of things [too hard to digest or need to exit quickly]- our digestion compromised to handle them, but both are inefficiently and poorly processed. Not sure if there are studies of the negative effects of putrefying meat and undigested leaves in human digestion beyond praise of insoluble fiber. Just my opinion derived from personal experience and some degree of casual research and knowledge.

I strongly agree with your assessment of our omnivorous physiology, but not so much on the meat part of it. It seems obvious to me that meat-eating was selected enough in our evolutionary history to make us a little dependent on certain nutrients only adequately obtained from animal sources. Something 'best' would have to include some meats or fish, even if just a little bit. That part about meat putrefying in our gut, that is nonsense spread by hysterical vegans. Hysterical vegans who are on diets that, unless they are properly supplementing creatine, cobalamin (not cyano), beta alanine, taurine, omega 3s (ALA alone doesn't cut it) etc ironically make them likelier to be depressed, anxious, paranoid, slower of deductive reasoning and hastier of intuitive reasoning, because sustained low levels of any of those have been demonstrated to cause these kinds of psychological and intellectual issues. I'm sure I've upset some vegans by saying that, but oh well, the biological facts are not on their side and virtually all of their arguments are founded in intuitive reasoning, folk logic and simple bad logic, which only really highlights the nutritional bankruptcy of their own diets contributing to their poor critical thinking faculties and excessive fears. If I ever meet a vegan who presents a case for veganism in a cogent, logically sound manner without ripping facts from context and fear-mongering with them, then I will profusely apologize to that person and thank them for being the exception.

We digest meats just fine and there is well recognized evidence that when we shifted to omnivorism, and especially when we began to cook meat with fire, this provided a little bit of a shortcut in producing energy for our bodies. Digestion has an energy cost. Decreasing the cost allowed us to use some energy in other ways, such as in the brain. Nutrients can be much more readily extracted from meats with much less waste, which is the real reason why obligate carnivores have such small guts and process their food so much more quickly despite swallowing chunks without chewing, and is why our guts are somewhere in the middle relative to other primates. Nature favors efficiency wherever it can.

That being said, there is of course a difference to be found among the quality of meats, fish and seafood.

Edited by Duchykins, 11 July 2014 - 07:31 AM.

[platypus]

I find it hard to understand that your Paleo with no red meat. Was everyone Paleo riddled with disease?

 

Same reason why everyone before the invention of antibiotics, including the farmers, were riddled with disease? 

[mikela]

 

 

So what am I trying to say, really? There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all diet, and that's true even if you set aside those who have various medical conditions or food sensitivities that require certain diets.

 

If you read a little more carefully you will see I never said or implied that low carb was "one-size-fits-all".  I was only making a counterpoint using actual references to technical literature and my own lipid panel rather than arm waving.

[health_nutty]

Interesting read on low carb vs low fat (not exactly on topic but interesting):

http://heartdisease....fatlocarb_3.htm

 

Interesting snippet from the article:

• 1) Avoid the simple carbohydrates that cause rapid rises and falls in insulin levels - pasta, potatoes, rice, and products made from refined flour.
• 2) Eat the more complex carbohydrates - vegetables and fruits - that supply necessary vitamins and roughage, without stimulating rapid rises and falls in insulin levels.
• 3) Eat foods that supply the "good" fats - fish, nuts, olives, avocados .
• 4) Avoid processed foods of any type that contain transfatty acids - possibly the worst kind of fat you can ingest.

 

 

[niner]

The premise of Paleo is absurd and naive of biological evolution. Selective pressures were much harsher back then, and our genetics are different now. For example adult lactose tolerance is slowly but surely spreading via more than one mutation. Environmental conditions were much harsher, if people were prone to be sickly or have dietary sensitivities for any reason then they were almost guaranteed to die quickly. Nevermind the fact that as late as a few hundred years ago it was still common practice to expose infants that weren't in perfect health and leave them to die, and those born with dietary sensitivities lingered on in steadily declining health, often dying before adolescence. Those that survived adolescence in paleo times generally proved to be the hardiest and most adaptable. What they happened to eat is more about what environment they were in rather than what was best for the body - and selection helped shape the body to the environment. If the bulk of easily obtained food was vegetables rather than fruit or meat, people born with mutations that allowed them to thrive on such diets would be selected and slowly outbreed anyone else who didn't do as well with the same diet. If the bulk of easily obtained food was meat or fish as opposed to fruits and vegetables, then the same mechanism would apply to favor those born better able to adapt to those diets.

 

 

I guess I'm missing something, because it sounds like you are laying out the exact evolutionary rationale that you are calling "absurd" and "naive".    The Paleo premise is that we are adapted to the foods that we ate for eons, and may or may not be adapted to the various "foods" that have emerged from the laboratory in the last century or so.  What part of that is absurd?

[Duchykins]

There was no central paleolithic diet that was specific enough to have all this nonsense about high fat, low carb or whatever else the public thinks a universal paleolithic diet was. First of all, the paleolithic period for hominids spanned hundreds of thousands of years. Diet varied according to placement in paleogeography, climate and the availability of prey. They had different nutritional needs too, those that lived in cold climates as was common during the Ice Age would have significantly benefitted or even required more fat in their diets because we use more energy in cold. They lived very differently back then, were nomadic hunter-gatherers, and it's been quite a while since those times, our diets have changed according to our wanderings, culture and geographical location. I don't mean to overly focus on lactose tolerance but it is simply a good, easily comprehended example of recent evolutionary changes and adaptations to diet.

The premise of paleo is structurally the same as a certain vegan argument; that at some point in the distant past, our evolutionary ancestors were herbivorous, it is part of our physiological history and therefore we are perfectly or best suited to a vegan diet without need of supplementation. I hope you can see that this is problematic because it requires that our herbivorous ancestors stopped evolving at the height of their herbivorism. Paleo diet argument require that our paleolithic ancestors stopped evolving during or immediately after the Ice Age. This is naive.


And as Timar pointed out, if your argument can only compare a typical modern-Paleo diet to a diet high in processed foods, then and only then does Paleo become preferable. But I would like to put a specific name to that line of reasoning you just again used, just to draw attention to this bad logic, and that name is false dichotomy. If Paleo doesn't yet have the supporting empirical evidence, then it should at least in the meantime be logically cogent without relying on intuitive reasoning IF pro-Paleo people want to convince others of this diet's superiority or defend it from criticism. Does that make things easier to understand?

[Mind]

One thing that a few of the paleo-dieters do for the good of science and the longevity community is test and publicly share their health/aging bio-markers. Duke might be raising his risk of cancer (in future years) with more meat/protein than average, but almost every other present-day metric of health is great for his age (over 50). Dave Asprey also measured his bio-markers religiously for a couple of years while on the bulletproof diet, and everything looked great. This data could prove very valuable in the future.

[Duchykins]

I agree with that, these are basically experminetal diets at the moment, for better or worse, and we will benefit from knowing how it affects people in the long term, 10-20 years.

Asprey, though, I'm not so sure about. He did ignore a lot of questions about his steriod therapy. I don't believe that therapy had an insignficant role in his overall health and wellbeing.

[DukeNukem]

 

My paleo diet for the last 12+ years:

o High-quality mammal meats, natural grass-fed when possible.
o High-quality turkey and chicken meats and sausage.
o Lots of eggs (mostly meat & veggie filled omelets).
o (Unfortunately, I don't like seafood.)
o Lots of salad vegetables (which are naturally very low carb).
o Potatoes and sweet potatoes occasionally.
o Berries a few times a week, but no larger fruits.
o 15-20 grams very dark chocolate (with coconut oil) daily.
o Very little cheese and dairy.
o For nuts, only macadamia nuts, as a snack.
o I eat hummus (I mix in whey powder and olive oil to boost protein and fat) as a snack sometimes, with potato chips cooked in avocado oil.
o Start each day with coffee, just a little cream and stevia.
o I drink a lot of unsweetened ice tea during the day.
o Never fruit juices, sodas, sports drinks or energy drinks.
o Rarely alcoholic drinks.
o Almost complete avoidance of grains, except moderate rice.
o Rarely any vegetable oils (unavoidable if I eat out).

I never eat a meal/snack that doesn't contain at least 20-25% high-quality protein content. Practically never use protein shakes or protein bars (Quest is the only protein bar I'll eat).

Never count calories. Maintain OUTSTANDING health stats (which I check yearly--over 125 health markers), and 9-10% body fat.

 

Hi, Duke Nukem. Your diet caught my eye because it is a polar opposite of my own in just about every way.  I believe that Paleo supporters may miss one important fact about human digestion - it lies somewhere between herbivore and carnivore. No cud chewing or second stomach to break down leaves and grasses. But, no abbreviated 10 foot tract to prevent the putrefaction of meat either. IMHO, our compromise of a digestive tract evolved so that humans could handle whatever they came across as scavengers, beach-combers, hunters-gatherers and so on. But, that does not mean that meat and leaves are ideal for human digestion, just that our digestion is a middle ground to handle both extremes to some moderate degree. Foods that digest best over that middle range digestive tract are probably best for humans, foods such as grains, nuts, root vegetables, fruits and legumes. They best fit those middle-ground omnivorous digestive tracts. Animal products and leaves/grasses are the worst end of things [too hard to digest or need to exit quickly]- our digestion compromised to handle them, but both are inefficiently and poorly processed. Not sure if there are studies of the negative effects of putrefying meat and undigested leaves in human digestion beyond praise of insoluble fiber. Just my opinion derived from personal experience and some degree of casual research and knowledge.

 

 

I've always said that the truth is in the evidence.  Everyone should get their health stats every 12 to 18 months, to see exactly how their diet is working for them.  The most important markers to have measured:

HDL

A large and small particle breakdown of LDL  (most docs do not do this, unless requested)

Trigs

CRP

A1c
Fasting insulin

Fasting glucose

I guess I'm not surprised that the myth of meat putrefaction still exists.  But I'm sure that even most hardcore vegetarians are well past this myth.
 

[DukeNukem]

One thing that a few of the paleo-dieters do for the good of science and the longevity community is test and publicly share their health/aging bio-markers. Duke might be raising his risk of cancer (in future years) with more meat/protein than average, but almost every other present-day metric of health is great for his age (over 50). Dave Asprey also measured his bio-markers religiously for a couple of years while on the bulletproof diet, and everything looked great. This data could prove very valuable in the future.

 

I don't eat as much meat as perhaps many people think, maybe two servings a day.

I also take about 50 supplements a day to also boost my health and longevity.

 

Plus hormone supplementation.

 

Plus very specific low-duration, high-intensity workouts with weights only (never cardio).

 

Everything adds up, and at age 53 I'm as fit and healthy as an athletically inclined 25 year old.  Easily.  Just yesterday I went mountain biking for 2 hours at 9am.  And at 9pm I played 3 hours of tennis.

[APBT]

Plus very specific low-duration, high-intensity workouts with weights only (never cardio).

 

Everything adds up, and at age 53 I'm as fit and healthy as an athletically inclined 25 year old.  Easily.  Just yesterday I went mountain biking for 2 hours at 9am.  And at 9pm I played 3 hours of tennis.

 

 

Um, not to be nit-picky, but I don't think a two-hour mountain bike ride or three hours of tennis qualify as, "...very specific low-duration, high-intensity workouts with weights only (never cardio)."

Edited by APBT, 11 July 2014 - 11:36 PM.

[DukeNukem]

 

Plus very specific low-duration, high-intensity workouts with weights only (never cardio).

 

Everything adds up, and at age 53 I'm as fit and healthy as an athletically inclined 25 year old.  Easily.  Just yesterday I went mountain biking for 2 hours at 9am.  And at 9pm I played 3 hours of tennis.

 

 

Um, not to be nit-picky, but I don't think a two-hour mountain bike ride or three hours of tennis qualify as, "...very specific low-duration, high-intensity workouts with weights only (never cardio)."

 

 

Tennis and riding and every other thing I do outdoors qualifies as play.

And all the types of play I do are short-burst intensity types -- never sustained cardio activities.  Mountain biking, for example, is 50% coasting.  Only only about 5% very high-intensity effort (during the occasional climb/uphill sections).

[niner]

The premise of paleo is structurally the same as a certain vegan argument; that at some point in the distant past, our evolutionary ancestors were herbivorous, it is part of our physiological history and therefore we are perfectly or best suited to a vegan diet without need of supplementation. I hope you can see that this is problematic because it requires that our herbivorous ancestors stopped evolving at the height of their herbivorism. Paleo diet argument require that our paleolithic ancestors stopped evolving during or immediately after the Ice Age. This is naive.

And as Timar pointed out, if your argument can only compare a typical modern-Paleo diet to a diet high in processed foods, then and only then does Paleo become preferable. But I would like to put a specific name to that line of reasoning you just again used, just to draw attention to this bad logic, and that name is false dichotomy. If Paleo doesn't yet have the supporting empirical evidence, then it should at least in the meantime be logically cogent without relying on intuitive reasoning IF pro-Paleo people want to convince others of this diet's superiority or defend it from criticism. Does that make things easier to understand?

 

I would contend that you have the wrong idea about the premise of paleo.  The evolutionary principles behind paleo don't tell us what to eat, but rather what not to eat.  Paleo doesn't have to mean tons of meat and fat.  I guess I'm peeing in the wind with this, however, as the caveman guys have pretty much hijacked the name.  I really don't care what hominids ate a million years ago, but if a particular food or macronutrient profile has popped up only in the last 50-60 generations, or particularly in the past two or three, then I feel like we're justified in at least questioning its place in our diet.  This is neither a naturalistic fallacy nor a false dichotomy.  It's just good sense based on evolutionary biology.

[TheFountain]

Then there is the fact that there are plenty of people out there who have crap diets and live long without any major health concerns, dying of typical old age or accidents. This is like the guy who smokes a pack a day since his teens, never racks up medical bills, and dies at 90 in his sleep without any sign of the typical diseases associated with tobacco. The cold truth of the matter is that they simply have the genes that allow them to thrive on those diets.

So what? What is the point you are trying to make? That nobody should try? People are leaving a ton of references to favor paleo style diets, as well as the blood work to go along with it. What's the prob bob? 

[Brett Black]

Something 'best' would have to include some meats or fish, even if just a little bit. That part about meat putrefying in our gut, that is nonsense spread by hysterical vegans. Hysterical vegans who are on diets that, unless they are properly supplementing creatine, cobalamin (not cyano), beta alanine, taurine, omega 3s (ALA alone doesn't cut it) etc ironically make them likelier to be depressed, anxious, paranoid, slower of deductive reasoning and hastier of intuitive reasoning, because sustained low levels of any of those have been demonstrated to cause these kinds of psychological and intellectual issues.

Vegetarians don't eat any meat or fish either.

Edited by Brett Black, 12 July 2014 - 04:17 AM.

[Duchykins]

The premise of paleo is structurally the same as a certain vegan argument; that at some point in the distant past, our evolutionary ancestors were herbivorous, it is part of our physiological history and therefore we are perfectly or best suited to a vegan diet without need of supplementation. I hope you can see that this is problematic because it requires that our herbivorous ancestors stopped evolving at the height of their herbivorism. Paleo diet argument require that our paleolithic ancestors stopped evolving during or immediately after the Ice Age. This is naive.

And as Timar pointed out, if your argument can only compare a typical modern-Paleo diet to a diet high in processed foods, then and only then does Paleo become preferable. But I would like to put a specific name to that line of reasoning you just again used, just to draw attention to this bad logic, and that name is false dichotomy. If Paleo doesn't yet have the supporting empirical evidence, then it should at least in the meantime be logically cogent without relying on intuitive reasoning IF pro-Paleo people want to convince others of this diet's superiority or defend it from criticism. Does that make things easier to understand?

 
I would contend that you have the wrong idea about the premise of paleo.  The evolutionary principles behind paleo don't tell us what to eat, but rather what not to eat.  Paleo doesn't have to mean tons of meat and fat.  I guess I'm peeing in the wind with this, however, as the caveman guys have pretty much hijacked the name.  I really don't care what hominids ate a million years ago, but if a particular food or macronutrient profile has popped up only in the last 50-60 generations, or particularly in the past two or three, then I feel like we're justified in at least questioning its place in our diet.  This is neither a naturalistic fallacy nor a false dichotomy.  It's just good sense based on evolutionary biology.

The way you have presented Paleo philosophy is something I can agree with and it's the first time I've seen it. Your argument is reasonable. Others have presented it differently and I did allow that to form my general impression of Paleo, reinforced by some popular Paleo bloggers. Thank you.

[Duchykins]

Then there is the fact that there are plenty of people out there who have crap diets and live long without any major health concerns, dying of typical old age or accidents. This is like the guy who smokes a pack a day since his teens, never racks up medical bills, and dies at 90 in his sleep without any sign of the typical diseases associated with tobacco. The cold truth of the matter is that they simply have the genes that allow them to thrive on those diets.

So what? What is the point you are trying to make? That nobody should try? People are leaving a ton of references to favor paleo style diets, as well as the blood work to go along with it. What's the prob bob? 

No, I do not encourage people to avoid diets that cut out processed foods, unless they are extreme like fruitarian or raw vegan. I never saw Paleo as an extreme or overly restrictive diet. I do not believe it is an unhealthy diet even if not optimal for some people like myself. My primary concern is with food myths, hysteria, questionable fads and bad logic because this can have profound effects on someone's life if they are suckered into the next big diet fad with the wrong impression of it. I do this indiscriminately so please don't think I'm just here picking on Paleo because I have a specific beef with it. People can become emotionally invested in their dietary and lifestyle choices and inflict them upon their children where it can do the most damage *if they are making the wrong choices*. I guess it bothers me because I've seen it firsthand and it's so tragically preventable. You want people to alter their diets for the right reasons and you want them to be properly informed because they're passing on their knowledge to others in their lives. If they are armed with actual facts and sound reasoning, everyone benefits with the spread of such knowledge, but if armed with misinformation, unsupported assumptions and illogic then it can do the opposite. We can tell people to look at the actual science and see what is supported and what isn't, but most people won't and will base their dietary choices on sensationalist media, questionable books, best friends and personal beliefs.

Edited by Duchykins, 12 July 2014 - 05:03 AM.

[Brafarality]

 

 

My paleo diet for the last 12+ years:

o High-quality mammal meats, natural grass-fed when possible.
o High-quality turkey and chicken meats and sausage.
o Lots of eggs (mostly meat & veggie filled omelets).
o (Unfortunately, I don't like seafood.)
o Lots of salad vegetables (which are naturally very low carb).
o Potatoes and sweet potatoes occasionally.
o Berries a few times a week, but no larger fruits.
o 15-20 grams very dark chocolate (with coconut oil) daily.
o Very little cheese and dairy.
o For nuts, only macadamia nuts, as a snack.
o I eat hummus (I mix in whey powder and olive oil to boost protein and fat) as a snack sometimes, with potato chips cooked in avocado oil.
o Start each day with coffee, just a little cream and stevia.
o I drink a lot of unsweetened ice tea during the day.
o Never fruit juices, sodas, sports drinks or energy drinks.
o Rarely alcoholic drinks.
o Almost complete avoidance of grains, except moderate rice.
o Rarely any vegetable oils (unavoidable if I eat out).

I never eat a meal/snack that doesn't contain at least 20-25% high-quality protein content. Practically never use protein shakes or protein bars (Quest is the only protein bar I'll eat).

Never count calories. Maintain OUTSTANDING health stats (which I check yearly--over 125 health markers), and 9-10% body fat.

 

Hi, Duke Nukem. Your diet caught my eye because it is a polar opposite of my own in just about every way.  I believe that Paleo supporters may miss one important fact about human digestion - it lies somewhere between herbivore and carnivore. No cud chewing or second stomach to break down leaves and grasses. But, no abbreviated 10 foot tract to prevent the putrefaction of meat either. IMHO, our compromise of a digestive tract evolved so that humans could handle whatever they came across as scavengers, beach-combers, hunters-gatherers and so on. But, that does not mean that meat and leaves are ideal for human digestion, just that our digestion is a middle ground to handle both extremes to some moderate degree. Foods that digest best over that middle range digestive tract are probably best for humans, foods such as grains, nuts, root vegetables, fruits and legumes. They best fit those middle-ground omnivorous digestive tracts. Animal products and leaves/grasses are the worst end of things [too hard to digest or need to exit quickly]- our digestion compromised to handle them, but both are inefficiently and poorly processed. Not sure if there are studies of the negative effects of putrefying meat and undigested leaves in human digestion beyond praise of insoluble fiber. Just my opinion derived from personal experience and some degree of casual research and knowledge.

 

 

I've always said that the truth is in the evidence.  Everyone should get their health stats every 12 to 18 months, to see exactly how their diet is working for them.  The most important markers to have measured:

HDL

A large and small particle breakdown of LDL  (most docs do not do this, unless requested)

Trigs

CRP

A1c
Fasting insulin

Fasting glucose

I guess I'm not surprised that the myth of meat putrefaction still exists.  But I'm sure that even most hardcore vegetarians are well past this myth.
 

 

 

Ha! I guess I am a diehard when it comes to that one. (meat putrefaction). I may just like the sound of the word 'putrefaction'. Anyway, thanks for not taking my comments personally. It is great that you are healthy and may you have a lifetime of fine health ahead.

 

[Brafarality]

I think a small amount of processed foods is good for optimal health. I think this applies to most, if not all, mammals. I have casually multiple observed households that feed their cats nothing but fresh fish and greens and whatever else they eat in the wild, introduce them to nothing threatening that they may encounter in the wilderness, and they all died between 12-18 years old. On the other hand, I know many who have fed their cats Friskies Indoor Delights every day of their lives and they routinely live to 16-20 years old. No joke. And, I bet everyone can find examples like this since pet ownership is so pervasive. I am not sure what conclusions can be drawn from this, but I am willing to bet that it would hold up over a study that includes 100,000 cats or dogs. Something about processed foods that cannot be denied- perhaps the easy digestibility, though I don't think it's good to have food that is too easy to digest all the time. Digestion needs to work hard, then take it easy, then work hard, like the rest of our body.

 

Summary: I believe a study of household pets such as cats and dogs should be conducted that compares the lifespan on commercial cat food as opposed to an all natural whole food diet. This is very possible today since there are many well-heeled people who have been shopping for their pets at Whole Foods and Trader Joe and Petco for the past 15-20 years, so there is a good sample set available. Let's compare. Some may not like the results if they are what I expect them to be.

Edited by Brafarality, 12 July 2014 - 07:20 PM.

[Dolph]

Feeding a cat is actually a very bad example, because it's a surprisingly difficult task. If tried the way you describe it, it's almost certain that the poor little predator won't get enough taurine.

I think you have a point although the term "processed food" is to unspecific to draw conclusions. A traditional souerdough rye bread and a pop-tart can both be called "processed food". But I don't think there would be lot's of need for discussion which one can be part of a healthy diet and which not.

[Brafarality]

Feeding a cat is actually a very bad example, because it's a surprisingly difficult task. If tried the way you describe it, it's almost certain that the poor little predator won't get enough taurine.

I think you have a point although the term "processed food" is to unspecific to draw conclusions. A traditional souerdough rye bread and a pop-tart can both be called "processed food". But I don't think there would be lot's of need for discussion which one can be part of a healthy diet and which not.

Good point. I bet their instincts make sure they get enough taurine in the wild. And, because of the results I have personally observed, I feed my 2 little rascals Indoor Delights. Though I realize it is a bit silly to get too attached to a particular brand since Purina and Nine Lives and so on make similar indoor recipes.

[oneshot2shots]

 

 

Then there is the fact that there are plenty of people out there who have crap diets and live long without any major health concerns, dying of typical old age or accidents. This is like the guy who smokes a pack a day since his teens, never racks up medical bills, and dies at 90 in his sleep without any sign of the typical diseases associated with tobacco. The cold truth of the matter is that they simply have the genes that allow them to thrive on those diets.

So what? What is the point you are trying to make? That nobody should try? People are leaving a ton of references to favor paleo style diets, as well as the blood work to go along with it. What's the prob bob? 

No, I do not encourage people to avoid diets that cut out processed foods, unless they are extreme like fruitarian or raw vegan. I never saw Paleo as an extreme or overly restrictive diet. I do not believe it is an unhealthy diet even if not optimal for some people like myself. My primary concern is with food myths, hysteria, questionable fads and bad logic because this can have profound effects on someone's life if they are suckered into the next big diet fad with the wrong impression of it. I do this indiscriminately so please don't think I'm just here picking on Paleo because I have a specific beef with it. People can become emotionally invested in their dietary and lifestyle choices and inflict them upon their children where it can do the most damage *if they are making the wrong choices*. I guess it bothers me because I've seen it firsthand and it's so tragically preventable. You want people to alter their diets for the right reasons and you want them to be properly informed because they're passing on their knowledge to others in their lives. If they are armed with actual facts and sound reasoning, everyone benefits with the spread of such knowledge, but if armed with misinformation, unsupported assumptions and illogic then it can do the opposite. We can tell people to look at the actual science and see what is supported and what isn't, but most people won't and will base their dietary choices on sensationalist media, questionable books, best friends and personal beliefs.

 

Agreed however, the whole problem is determining what is reasonable and logical. 

 

Your definition of logical is very different from mine, you placing more of an emphasis on pure scientific studies.

 

1)Scientific studies simply can't be trusted anymore re food and nutrition. There is so much debate and controversy, even around things taken for granted. Its not pulling its weight.The "studies" are isolated. They can't take all the variables into account. The government have been pro-carb for the last 30 years, You think there going to endorse anti-carb studies? Making informed decisions is impossible in this case from scientific evidence, as there is a lack of it available and a  lack of consensus.

 

2)Bio markers from Paleos are simply better than others.  

 

3)Anecdotal evidence from Paleos is fantastic. Many a vegan has gone Paleo and noted the difference, rarely the other way around. 

4)There seems to be sound scientific reasoning behind saturated fat and cholesterol, just because its found in arteries after heart attacks is no indication of it being the cause.

 

5)Most importantly, my N=1 works out in line with the above. I feel great in ketosis with load of energy.(No-one who has actually been in ketosis will say they don't feel the increased energy.)

 

6)After all of this is the argument that if we eat as our ancestors did we will feel better. Which everyone seems to agree on(the foods, not so much the reasoning behind it) aside from cholesterol, saturated fat, meat and the big one being carbs. From what Ive read and put into practice carbs are bad, fat and cholesterol are good. High glycemic index carbs are the only variable which could be causing the new onslaught of diseases.  It just makes sense. 

 

These are my beliefs/opinions, which you will call assumptions. I prefer to think of them as common sense, as everything seems to fit together from an overall perspective. And as to the "facts" you refer to are simply no readily available, some of these have to be made.   

 

Anyway to each his own, there is a strong case for individual genetics and its surprises me that you get ill from eggs, I eat them soft as much as possible and feel great. 

 

At the end of the day at least everyone can agree on self-testing, trying out foods and monitoring stats??  This is the only relevant measure. Try foods and track. Everything else is secondary Otherwise we'll be here all day discussing the benefits of saturated v unsaturated fats, the results being inconclusive.I'm following Paleo as per Duke Nukem with about 10 supplements, will post stats when I go to the doc.

 

Thank god we are in an age where we don't actually have to rely on government/corporate/independent research organisations, as all have agendas. From where I'm standing people get misled and misinformed from these studies, and get real information form the bio metrics of individuals, and primarily from themselves.

[Duchykins]

Feeding a cat is actually a very bad example, because it's a surprisingly difficult task. If tried the way you describe it, it's almost certain that the poor little predator won't get enough taurine.

I think you have a point although the term "processed food" is to unspecific to draw conclusions. A traditional souerdough rye bread and a pop-tart can both be called "processed food". But I don't think there would be lot's of need for discussion which one can be part of a healthy diet and which not.

Good point. I bet their instincts make sure they get enough taurine in the wild. And, because of the results I have personally observed, I feed my 2 little rascals Indoor Delights. Though I realize it is a bit silly to get too attached to a particular brand since Purina and Nine Lives and so on make similar indoor recipes.

I prefer Blue Buffalo's Evolutionary Diet, the duck recipe. My Russian Blue indoor-only cat is prone to stress - urinary tract problems, I think due to some genetic predisposition, and does better when not given fish or chicken based formulas. She also gets some turkey no by-product wet food that I sometimes mix a little bit of my own taurine, lysine, methionine into, and and a bit of plain salmon just because she goes nuts for it. Soaking the kibble in some turkey stock helps keep her hydrated too because she is not big on drinking water, as most cats tend to be. When I shifted her diet over from Iams to this new one, she started stalking us every night and attacking legs from nowhere at any random time, playing the staring game more vigorously and slapping our faces, no danger to anything but pants, we love it because it's very obvious that she feels amazing and properly cat-like on the new regimen.

[Brafarality]

 

 

Feeding a cat is actually a very bad example, because it's a surprisingly difficult task. If tried the way you describe it, it's almost certain that the poor little predator won't get enough taurine.

I think you have a point although the term "processed food" is to unspecific to draw conclusions. A traditional souerdough rye bread and a pop-tart can both be called "processed food". But I don't think there would be lot's of need for discussion which one can be part of a healthy diet and which not.

Good point. I bet their instincts make sure they get enough taurine in the wild. And, because of the results I have personally observed, I feed my 2 little rascals Indoor Delights. Though I realize it is a bit silly to get too attached to a particular brand since Purina and Nine Lives and so on make similar indoor recipes.

I prefer Blue Buffalo's Evolutionary Diet, the duck recipe. My Russian Blue indoor-only cat is prone to stress - urinary tract problems, I think due to some genetic predisposition, and does better when not given fish or chicken based formulas. She also gets some turkey no by-product wet food that I sometimes mix a little bit of my own taurine, lysine, methionine into, and and a bit of plain salmon just because she goes nuts for it. Soaking the kibble in some turkey stock helps keep her hydrated too because she is not big on drinking water, as most cats tend to be. When I shifted her diet over from Iams to this new one, she started stalking us every night and attacking legs from nowhere at any random time, playing the staring game more vigorously and slapping our faces, no danger to anything but pants, we love it because it's very obvious that she feels amazing and properly cat-like on the new regimen.

 

 

Very interesting. Good to hear your cat regained its zest for hunting and stalking. That is precious. So, Blue Buffalo's Evolutionary Diet...must look into it further....Not bad. Favorable feedback on the Blue Buffalo cat and dog lines. And, I believe you have zoned in on the Blue Wilderness recipes. They are probably a bit steep but worth it for my cats. Will head to Whole Foods today and see how much they go for and may try it out, though these cats love Friskies. They are brand loyal like that!
 

[Duchykins]

 

 

Then there is the fact that there are plenty of people out there who have crap diets and live long without any major health concerns, dying of typical old age or accidents. This is like the guy who smokes a pack a day since his teens, never racks up medical bills, and dies at 90 in his sleep without any sign of the typical diseases associated with tobacco. The cold truth of the matter is that they simply have the genes that allow them to thrive on those diets.

So what? What is the point you are trying to make? That nobody should try? People are leaving a ton of references to favor paleo style diets, as well as the blood work to go along with it. What's the prob bob? 

No, I do not encourage people to avoid diets that cut out processed foods, unless they are extreme like fruitarian or raw vegan. I never saw Paleo as an extreme or overly restrictive diet. I do not believe it is an unhealthy diet even if not optimal for some people like myself. My primary concern is with food myths, hysteria, questionable fads and bad logic because this can have profound effects on someone's life if they are suckered into the next big diet fad with the wrong impression of it. I do this indiscriminately so please don't think I'm just here picking on Paleo because I have a specific beef with it. People can become emotionally invested in their dietary and lifestyle choices and inflict them upon their children where it can do the most damage *if they are making the wrong choices*. I guess it bothers me because I've seen it firsthand and it's so tragically preventable. You want people to alter their diets for the right reasons and you want them to be properly informed because they're passing on their knowledge to others in their lives. If they are armed with actual facts and sound reasoning, everyone benefits with the spread of such knowledge, but if armed with misinformation, unsupported assumptions and illogic then it can do the opposite. We can tell people to look at the actual science and see what is supported and what isn't, but most people won't and will base their dietary choices on sensationalist media, questionable books, best friends and personal beliefs.
 

Agreed however, the whole problem is determining what is reasonable and logical. 
 
Your definition of logical is very different from mine, you placing more of an emphasis on pure scientific studies.
 
1)Scientific studies simply can't be trusted anymore re food and nutrition. There is so much debate and controversy, even around things taken for granted. Its not pulling its weight.The "studies" are isolated. They can't take all the variables into account. The government have been pro-carb for the last 30 years, You think there going to endorse anti-carb studies? Making informed decisions is impossible in this case from scientific evidence, as there is a lack of it available and a  lack of consensus.
 
2)Bio markers from Paleos are simply better than others.  
 
3)Anecdotal evidence from Paleos is fantastic. Many a vegan has gone Paleo and noted the difference, rarely the other way around. 
4)There seems to be sound scientific reasoning behind saturated fat and cholesterol, just because its found in arteries after heart attacks is no indication of it being the cause.
 
5)Most importantly, my N=1 works out in line with the above. I feel great in ketosis with load of energy.(No-one who has actually been in ketosis will say they don't feel the increased energy.)
 
6)After all of this is the argument that if we eat as our ancestors did we will feel better. Which everyone seems to agree on(the foods, not so much the reasoning behind it) aside from cholesterol, saturated fat, meat and the big one being carbs. From what Ive read and put into practice carbs are bad, fat and cholesterol are good. High glycemic index carbs are the only variable which could be causing the new onslaught of diseases.  It just makes sense. 
 
These are my beliefs/opinions, which you will call assumptions. I prefer to think of them as common sense, as everything seems to fit together from an overall perspective. And as to the "facts" you refer to are simply no readily available, some of these have to be made.   
 
Anyway to each his own, there is a strong case for individual genetics and its surprises me that you get ill from eggs, I eat them soft as much as possible and feel great. 
 
At the end of the day at least everyone can agree on self-testing, trying out foods and monitoring stats??  This is the only relevant measure. Try foods and track. Everything else is secondary Otherwise we'll be here all day discussing the benefits of saturated v unsaturated fats, the results being inconclusive.I'm following Paleo as per Duke Nukem with about 10 supplements, will post stats when I go to the doc.
 
Thank god we are in an age where we don't actually have to rely on government/corporate/independent research organisations, as all have agendas. From where I'm standing people get misled and misinformed from these studies, and get real information form the bio metrics of individuals, and primarily from themselves.

It seems the 'logic' you rely in is that nebulous 'common sense' that isn't all that common. It's synonymous with intuitive reasoning.

The logic I rely on is found in university; basic logic, philosophy, critical thinking courses. No big deal. It's not terribly bizarre or very technical. It's not something I made up because it feels right.

If you're cutting macaroni and cheese with vienna sausages in favor of a slab of cod with calrose rice, snow peas, water chestnuts and broccoli, then you're going to be feeling better after a while. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

However your claim that carbs are universally bad is irrational and extreme. There are plenty of studies finding that a diet with regularly occuring simple carbs from processed foods is not an awesome diet, but no studies finding the same of whole food complex carbs. I bet you don't think those studies on simple carbs are too biased to be believable.

We are very well built to use complex carbs. Our primary natural sources of vitamin C are plant based foods that are often starchy. Animal sources of C are secondary. We need C all the time because we are constantly losing it throughout the day. Plant based foods are easier and more reliable sources, that is why they are the primary. Starchy fruits and veggies were such a significant part of diet that when our ancestors lost the ability to synth our own C, that loss had virtually no impact on them, they flourished anyway and passed that mutation foward. We never stopped eating complex carbs and so never lost mechanisms for using them, in fact quite the opposite, we became more efficient at using them.

Your claim that carbs are the sole source of 'new' dieases is ... damn, I can't even express how much that little nugget of inanity blew my mind. Even assuming carbs are universally bad, that is an unreasonable, sensationalist conclusion. Our technology allows us to live much longer, this affords the late-acting fatal genes we all carry many opportunities to show their faces. This is at least one cause. Pollutants, another cause. There are WAY too many variables to reasonably place the blame on carbs. When people like you make such declarations and people like me see them, it undermines your credibility.

Your evaluation of the scientific community as a whole smacks of paranoia and conspiracy theory. Sure, some studies are clearly bought, and other studies are imperfect, that's why people who are interested in this topic need to learn a bit about how good science is done and then look at the studies directly and analyze them. Not rely on the media to interpret studies for you, because even the big sciencey mags have interpreted results badly or put a creative spin on something, I see it all the time ... and why not, they're not scientists, they're journalists.

You just have just stopped at 'processed foods full of simple carbs should not be a regular part of someone's diet' and 'experiment on yourself'.

[Brett Black]

Hysterical vegans who are on diets that, unless they are properly supplementing creatine, cobalamin (not cyano), beta alanine, taurine, omega 3s (ALA alone doesn't cut it) etc ironically make them likelier to be depressed, anxious, paranoid, slower of deductive reasoning and hastier of intuitive reasoning, because sustained low levels of any of those have been demonstrated to cause these kinds of psychological and intellectual issues.

There is a small amount of very preliminary evidence, that could be used as a basis upon which to speculate that vegans might benefit from supplementing some of the things you list.

B12(cyanocobalamin-inclusive) is the only thing in that list considered an essential nutrient. Vegans should definitely supplement B12. I'm unaware of any consensus that supplemental non-cyano cobalamin shows any particular benefit over cyanocobalamin. I've never heard of beta-alanine being supplemented for cognitive benefits, it's usually considered an athletic supplement.

There may indeed be down sides to a vegan diet, as with any diet, but in general there seems to be no general consensus amongst nutritionists that a vegan diet is cause for any concern, so long as B12 is supplemented.

As a counterpoint there are some large studies(e.g. Adventist Health Study), again somewhat limited and preliminary, showing various benefits of vegan diets such as better life-expectancy, lower BMI, less diabetes, less CVD etc.

Here are some peer-reviewed expert statements regarding vegan and vegetarian diets:

1. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Jul;109(7):1266-82.

Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets.

Craig WJ(1), Mangels AR; American Dietetic Association.

Author information:
(1)Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, USA.

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately
planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are
healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the
prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are
appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including
pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A
vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or
seafood, or products containing those foods. This article reviews the current
data related to key nutrients for vegetarians including protein, n-3 fatty acids,
iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and vitamins D and B-12. A vegetarian diet can meet
current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, supplements or
fortified foods can provide useful amounts of important nutrients. An evidence-
based review showed that vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate in
pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. The results
of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a
lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have
lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower
rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore,
vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates.
Features of a vegetarian diet that may reduce risk of chronic disease include
lower intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol and higher intakes of fruits,
vegetables, whole grains, nuts, soy products, fiber, and phytochemicals. The
variability of dietary practices among vegetarians makes individual assessment of
dietary adequacy essential. In addition to assessing dietary adequacy, food and
nutrition professionals can also play key roles in educating vegetarians about
sources of specific nutrients, food purchase and preparation, and dietary
modifications to meet their needs.

PMID: 19562864 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19562864

1. Proc Nutr Soc. 2006 Feb;65(1):35-41.

Health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets.

Key TJ(1), Appleby PN, Rosell MS.

Author information:
(1)Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Richard Doll
Building. tim.key@ceu.ox.ac.uk

Vegetarian diets do not contain meat, poultry or fish; vegan diets further
exclude dairy products and eggs. Vegetarian and vegan diets can vary widely, but
the empirical evidence largely relates to the nutritional content and health
effects of the average diet of well-educated vegetarians living in Western
countries, together with some information on vegetarians in non-Western
countries. In general, vegetarian diets provide relatively large amounts of
cereals, pulses, nuts, fruits and vegetables. In terms of nutrients, vegetarian
diets are usually rich in carbohydrates, n-6 fatty acids, dietary fibre,
carotenoids, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E and Mg, and relatively low in
protein, saturated fat, long-chain n-3 fatty acids, retinol, vitamin B(12) and
Zn; vegans may have particularly low intakes of vitamin B(12) and low intakes of
Ca. Cross-sectional studies of vegetarians and vegans have shown that on average
they have a relatively low BMI and a low plasma cholesterol concentration; recent
studies have also shown higher plasma homocysteine concentrations than in
non-vegetarians. Cohort studies of vegetarians have shown a moderate reduction in
mortality from IHD but little difference in other major causes of death or
all-cause mortality in comparison with health-conscious non-vegetarians from the
same population. Studies of cancer have not shown clear differences in cancer
rates between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. More data are needed, particularly
on the health of vegans and on the possible impacts on health of low intakes of
long-chain n-3 fatty acids and vitamin B(12). Overall, the data suggest that the
health of Western vegetarians is good and similar to that of comparable
non-vegetarians.

PMID: 16441942 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16441942

Edited by Brett Black, 13 July 2014 - 03:19 AM.

[Brett Black]

A healthy dose of skepticism regarding the results and the current state of nutritional research definitely seems warranted. Professor John P A Ioannidis has recently become known for highlighting the systemic problems and issues found in this field, and he presents a nice overview of the challenges that the nutritional sciences face in the following editorial:

Implausible results in human nutrition research

John P A Ioannidis, professor of medicine, health research and policy, and statistics
Author affiliations
jioannid@stanford.edu

Definitive solutions wont come from another million observational papers or small randomized trials

Research into human nutrition has been criticized on numerous occasions. Critics have focused on the poor track record of observational claims when tested in subsequent randomized trials (0/52 success rate in one review) and perpetuated fallacies.1 2 3 In contrast to major nutritional deficiencies and extreme cases, the effects of modest differences in nutrient intake have been difficult to study reliably at the population level. Nonetheless, some results, even of randomized trials, have been extremely promising.4 5 However, to establish a less controversial legacy for this important field, we should avoid past traps and be explicit about reasonable expectations. Implausible results that are too good to be true still threaten nutritional research on many fronts, including survey measurements, observational associations, treatment effects in randomized trials, and estimates of the impact on populations....[continued]
http://www.bmj.com/c...t/347/bmj.f6698

Edited by Brett Black, 13 July 2014 - 04:02 AM.