13 ms·

This article opens with, "[New science] is also showing us that advocates of trendy paleo and vegan diets are missing the big picture of how our omnivorous dige

by asciimo 11y ago

This article opens with, "[New science] is also showing us that advocates of trendy paleo and vegan diets are missing the big picture of how our omnivorous digestive system works." But it concludes with, "Pick a modest-sized plate and make meals using vegetables, legumes, leafy greens, beans, fruits, and unmilled whole grains as the main ingredients. Add some meat if you want and dollops of healthy fats on the side or sprinkled through the plant foods. Desserts and sweets are special, so save them for the special times." Omit the optional meat an you have a vegan diet. What about the "big picture" are vegans missing?

shanusmagnus 11y ago
And omit the legumes and grains and you have paleo. Agreed, it's pointlessly contrary.
- kuschku 11y ago
  You don’t even need to omit the grains. You can just eat Dinkel or Urkorn, two very common (like, in every bakery) types of grain that existed even in the paleolithic times. EDIT: Seriously, how is this not contributing? Please provide a comment if you think it is not contributing.
  - Sargos 11y ago
    Those grains aren't good for paleo though since we didn't really eat them while evolving. Our bodies haven't been primarily digesting them for very long.
    - Retric 11y ago
      I think you underestimate how fast evolution happens. Lactose tolerance is a fairly recent, but widespread adaptation.
      - mrob 11y ago
        Speed of evolution depends on how strongly the adaptation influences reproductive success. It's possible that grain causes subtle long-term damage that mostly kills people past reproductive age, whereas lactose tolerance is of immediate benefit. If this is true then grain tolerance would evolve much slower than lactose tolerance. But note that the "subtle long term" damage argument applies to all foods, and it's uncertain if grains are significantly worse than any other.
        magicalist 11y ago
        > It's possible that grain causes subtle long-term damage that mostly kills people past reproductive age, whereas lactose tolerance is of immediate benefit. Sure, and it's also possible the human body has already adapted to processing grains without long term damage, and it's possible that there was never any damage by consuming grains in the first place (the body is highly adaptable). All this line of argument is stating is that without any information, we have no information. What Retric was stating is different though. There exists digestive adaptations that have happened relatively rapidly in relatively recent history, therefore merely the fact that foods were not available in more ancient history is not sufficient to argue that they "aren't good" for the body.
        kuschku 11y ago
        And, as many gluten-sensitive (but not allergic) people told in a recent thread on reddit, where the topic came up, they have next to no issue with the hand-baked bread you find in small bakeries in Europe, but the issues often only show when eating mass-produced bread. It’s more likely that gluten sensitivity is just caused by a cross-interaction with an additive used for bleaching or similar.
        r00fus 11y ago
        More likely glycophosphates (roundup)
      - qiqing 11y ago
    - adrianN 11y ago
      I don't think that we have very solid evidence on the diet we ate "while we were evolving" (when did that period stop?).
    - NikolaeVarius 11y ago
      Of course paleo is absolute BS, so why does it matter?
      - pedalpete 11y ago
        rather than just saying an absolute, why not give some facts as to why "you agree with those who say paleo is BS". I'm not suggesting it isn't but your dismissive comment doesn't enlighten those who are not aware of the controversy.
        PerfectElement 11y ago
        Not explicitly about paleo, but with lots of anti-paleo evidence: http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically-ebook/dp/B00Y7USB14/ http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically-eb...
        Joof 11y ago
        Is there a controversy? Eating more nutrious food and fewer calories (assuming a previous diet of too many calories and poor nutrucian) typically benefits people whether it's paleo, vegan or just a regular healthier diet. Paleo's basic premise is loosly based on the malnourishment seen when we transitioned from a diverse hunter-gatherer diet to a much less diverse agricultural diet (largely caused by iron deficiencies). Its a misunderstanding of history. We ate those foods before, but they weren't the ONLY things people ate. The result is ultimately still restricting diet to healthier foods which means it's nutricious, but still unnecessarily restrictive and without a realistic premise.
      - hjura 11y ago
        I don't get why paleo diet is not congruent. So our DNA is build upon iterations(generations), and the aliments that were eaten in the majority of those are better suited for our current generation. Any argument?
        efaref 11y ago
        The "vast majority" of our ancestors were single cell beings.
  - OldSchoolJohnny 11y ago
    No matter the seed you will find in the vast majority of cases they contain anti-nutrients that are toxic to mammals. Lectins, glutens, phytates, etc.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      Since when is gluten "toxic", not just "leads to an allergic reaction in a minority of the population"?
      - kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
        How dare you let reason get in the way of the pitchfork masses.
        OldSchoolJohnny 11y ago
        "Reason"? I think you spelled "assumption" wrong.
      - OldSchoolJohnny 11y ago
        There is far more in wheat than gluten. Seeds of many kinds are filled with specific chemical compounds that are toxic to mammals. Plants actively participate in chemical warfare at many levels, via the roots, leaves and seeds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_predation#Seeds_and_their_defenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_predation#Seeds_and_their...
    - nextos 11y ago
      But fermentation (like in sourdough) can fix this right?
      - OldSchoolJohnny 11y ago
        Yes, fermentation lowers not only the gluten it also reduces the toxic chemical defenses built into seeds as well in many cases. Beware though, most "sourdough" available in anything less than an artisan bakery is generally standard white dough with lactic acid added to it and some weasel words on the label to make it sound like it's naturally leavened.
hondo77 11y ago
Dairy.
- clock_tower 11y ago
  My thought as well. Milk, cheese, and eggs are unfashionable at the moment, for whatever reason; but that doesn't make them less valuable or desirable. Is animal welfare the reason for dairy goods being out of fashion? I doubt it; it's easy to come by humane milk and eggs, although humane cheese, butter, kefir, yogurt, etc. are less common. And yet, vegans are the new vegetarians -- even the Jains are going vegan -- while we also get the paleo diet with its own reasons for being anti-dairy... There's also hostility to bread. Bread and milk are historic European staples; a part of me suspects that hostility to these (at least in white Americans) is really about hostility to the past.
  - 1535536 11y ago
    The milk that many regions of the world consumed was genetically different to the most common milk that humans consume today. It has been proven that a2 milk is digested differently to a1 milk. I switched to a2 milk and the difference to my digestive system was extremely obvious. Time will show that for many people, if they consume milk, it should be a2 milk.
    - arjie 11y ago
      If anyone else wants a quick summary of what you can find on Google Scholar for this: There is currently no strong evidence in support of the idea that A2 milk has better digestive or other health properties than A1 milk. Most of the stuff I found out there concluded that there was no significant difference, and the few that I found on the rest of the Internet were contradicted elsewhere.
      - 1535537 11y ago
        This is correct and does not contradict anything I said. It is quite easy to try it for yourself and see if it does anything. Of course you will want to avoid consuming large amounts of other dairy sources while you are trying it.
codingdave 11y ago
The "add some meat if you want" part.
1535536 11y ago
Err not really. The typical vegan diet contains large amounts of potato, heavily refined carbohydrates, and processed foods. It also lacks an emphasis on probiotic and prebiotic foods such as sauerkraut. The article also didn't say the diets were massively different, but rather that they had a different emphasis. You can eat a vegan diet and avoid all of the prebiotic and probiotic foods.
- PerfectElement 11y ago
  There's no typical vegan diet, just like there's no typical non-vegan diet. Vegans can eat whole foods, junk food, high-carb, low-carb, high-protein, etc. There's no macro or micro nutrient that comes exclusively from animals. (Btw, I've never seen Sauerkraut that wasn't vegan.) I've been vegan for 10 years, have lived in 3 different countries and have met a lot of vegans, usually in situations where food was involved. My personal experience indicates that, overall, vegans eat less processed/refined foods than non-vegans and are more knowledgeable about nutrition than the average.
  - 1535537 11y ago
    My experience is that they eat a lot of potato chips and biscuits. Where do you get your vitamin b12 from? Regardless, the rest of my comment points out why the person I was replying to is wrong. Even your comment points it out. All you need to do to be a vegan is not eat animal products. This means you can avoid all of the foods that are good for your biome. That was the entire point of the quote from the article that was completely missed by the op. In addition, not all vegetables are equal with regards to bacteria.
edem 11y ago
If you omit something it is not the same anymore. It is like omitting pasta from a spaghetti bolognese: you will end up with something completely different and not even remotely pleasant.
mark_l_watson 11y ago
Well, the author points out that meat is beneficial, but eat just a small amount with meals so it largely gets absorbed in the small intestine (and he explains why this is important). The other valuable information is why whole grains are OK to eat (I favor them in small portions only) and processed grains are so bad for us.

by asciimo 11y ago

shanusmagnus 11y ago

And omit the legumes and grains and you have paleo. Agreed, it's pointlessly contrary.

kuschku 11y ago
You don’t even need to omit the grains. You can just eat Dinkel or Urkorn, two very common (like, in every bakery) types of grain that existed even in the paleolithic times. EDIT: Seriously, how is this not contributing? Please provide a comment if you think it is not contributing.
- Sargos 11y ago
  Those grains aren't good for paleo though since we didn't really eat them while evolving. Our bodies haven't been primarily digesting them for very long.
  - Retric 11y ago
    I think you underestimate how fast evolution happens. Lactose tolerance is a fairly recent, but widespread adaptation.
    - mrob 11y ago
      Speed of evolution depends on how strongly the adaptation influences reproductive success. It's possible that grain causes subtle long-term damage that mostly kills people past reproductive age, whereas lactose tolerance is of immediate benefit. If this is true then grain tolerance would evolve much slower than lactose tolerance. But note that the "subtle long term" damage argument applies to all foods, and it's uncertain if grains are significantly worse than any other.
      - magicalist 11y ago
        > It's possible that grain causes subtle long-term damage that mostly kills people past reproductive age, whereas lactose tolerance is of immediate benefit. Sure, and it's also possible the human body has already adapted to processing grains without long term damage, and it's possible that there was never any damage by consuming grains in the first place (the body is highly adaptable). All this line of argument is stating is that without any information, we have no information. What Retric was stating is different though. There exists digestive adaptations that have happened relatively rapidly in relatively recent history, therefore merely the fact that foods were not available in more ancient history is not sufficient to argue that they "aren't good" for the body.
        kuschku 11y ago
        And, as many gluten-sensitive (but not allergic) people told in a recent thread on reddit, where the topic came up, they have next to no issue with the hand-baked bread you find in small bakeries in Europe, but the issues often only show when eating mass-produced bread. It’s more likely that gluten sensitivity is just caused by a cross-interaction with an additive used for bleaching or similar.
        r00fus 11y ago
        More likely glycophosphates (roundup)
    - qiqing 11y ago
  - adrianN 11y ago
    I don't think that we have very solid evidence on the diet we ate "while we were evolving" (when did that period stop?).
  - NikolaeVarius 11y ago
    Of course paleo is absolute BS, so why does it matter?
    - pedalpete 11y ago
      rather than just saying an absolute, why not give some facts as to why "you agree with those who say paleo is BS". I'm not suggesting it isn't but your dismissive comment doesn't enlighten those who are not aware of the controversy.
      - PerfectElement 11y ago
        Not explicitly about paleo, but with lots of anti-paleo evidence: http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically-ebook/dp/B00Y7USB14/ http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically-eb...
      - Joof 11y ago
        Is there a controversy? Eating more nutrious food and fewer calories (assuming a previous diet of too many calories and poor nutrucian) typically benefits people whether it's paleo, vegan or just a regular healthier diet. Paleo's basic premise is loosly based on the malnourishment seen when we transitioned from a diverse hunter-gatherer diet to a much less diverse agricultural diet (largely caused by iron deficiencies). Its a misunderstanding of history. We ate those foods before, but they weren't the ONLY things people ate. The result is ultimately still restricting diet to healthier foods which means it's nutricious, but still unnecessarily restrictive and without a realistic premise.
    - hjura 11y ago
      I don't get why paleo diet is not congruent. So our DNA is build upon iterations(generations), and the aliments that were eaten in the majority of those are better suited for our current generation. Any argument?
      - efaref 11y ago
        The "vast majority" of our ancestors were single cell beings.
- OldSchoolJohnny 11y ago
  No matter the seed you will find in the vast majority of cases they contain anti-nutrients that are toxic to mammals. Lectins, glutens, phytates, etc.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Since when is gluten "toxic", not just "leads to an allergic reaction in a minority of the population"?
    - kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
      How dare you let reason get in the way of the pitchfork masses.
      - OldSchoolJohnny 11y ago
        "Reason"? I think you spelled "assumption" wrong.
    - OldSchoolJohnny 11y ago
      There is far more in wheat than gluten. Seeds of many kinds are filled with specific chemical compounds that are toxic to mammals. Plants actively participate in chemical warfare at many levels, via the roots, leaves and seeds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_predation#Seeds_and_their_defenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_predation#Seeds_and_their...
  - nextos 11y ago
    But fermentation (like in sourdough) can fix this right?
    - OldSchoolJohnny 11y ago
      Yes, fermentation lowers not only the gluten it also reduces the toxic chemical defenses built into seeds as well in many cases. Beware though, most "sourdough" available in anything less than an artisan bakery is generally standard white dough with lactic acid added to it and some weasel words on the label to make it sound like it's naturally leavened.

hondo77 11y ago

Dairy.

clock_tower 11y ago
My thought as well. Milk, cheese, and eggs are unfashionable at the moment, for whatever reason; but that doesn't make them less valuable or desirable. Is animal welfare the reason for dairy goods being out of fashion? I doubt it; it's easy to come by humane milk and eggs, although humane cheese, butter, kefir, yogurt, etc. are less common. And yet, vegans are the new vegetarians -- even the Jains are going vegan -- while we also get the paleo diet with its own reasons for being anti-dairy... There's also hostility to bread. Bread and milk are historic European staples; a part of me suspects that hostility to these (at least in white Americans) is really about hostility to the past.
- 1535536 11y ago
  The milk that many regions of the world consumed was genetically different to the most common milk that humans consume today. It has been proven that a2 milk is digested differently to a1 milk. I switched to a2 milk and the difference to my digestive system was extremely obvious. Time will show that for many people, if they consume milk, it should be a2 milk.
  - arjie 11y ago
    If anyone else wants a quick summary of what you can find on Google Scholar for this: There is currently no strong evidence in support of the idea that A2 milk has better digestive or other health properties than A1 milk. Most of the stuff I found out there concluded that there was no significant difference, and the few that I found on the rest of the Internet were contradicted elsewhere.
    - 1535537 11y ago
      This is correct and does not contradict anything I said. It is quite easy to try it for yourself and see if it does anything. Of course you will want to avoid consuming large amounts of other dairy sources while you are trying it.

codingdave 11y ago

The "add some meat if you want" part.

1535536 11y ago

Err not really. The typical vegan diet contains large amounts of potato, heavily refined carbohydrates, and processed foods. It also lacks an emphasis on probiotic and prebiotic foods such as sauerkraut. The article also didn't say the diets were massively different, but rather that they had a different emphasis. You can eat a vegan diet and avoid all of the prebiotic and probiotic foods.

PerfectElement 11y ago
There's no typical vegan diet, just like there's no typical non-vegan diet. Vegans can eat whole foods, junk food, high-carb, low-carb, high-protein, etc. There's no macro or micro nutrient that comes exclusively from animals. (Btw, I've never seen Sauerkraut that wasn't vegan.) I've been vegan for 10 years, have lived in 3 different countries and have met a lot of vegans, usually in situations where food was involved. My personal experience indicates that, overall, vegans eat less processed/refined foods than non-vegans and are more knowledgeable about nutrition than the average.
- 1535537 11y ago
  My experience is that they eat a lot of potato chips and biscuits. Where do you get your vitamin b12 from? Regardless, the rest of my comment points out why the person I was replying to is wrong. Even your comment points it out. All you need to do to be a vegan is not eat animal products. This means you can avoid all of the foods that are good for your biome. That was the entire point of the quote from the article that was completely missed by the op. In addition, not all vegetables are equal with regards to bacteria.

edem 11y ago

If you omit something it is not the same anymore. It is like omitting pasta from a spaghetti bolognese: you will end up with something completely different and not even remotely pleasant.

mark_l_watson 11y ago

Well, the author points out that meat is beneficial, but eat just a small amount with meals so it largely gets absorbed in the small intestine (and he explains why this is important). The other valuable information is why whole grains are OK to eat (I favor them in small portions only) and processed grains are so bad for us.