8 ms·

How to Keep Feces Out of Your Bloodstream (or Lose 10 Pounds in 14 Days)

41 points by ericb 16y ago

ericb 16y ago
I submitted this because I have no idea what to make of it and no real idea if it is credible. I am so tired of adapting to what is "good" only to have that change. So my oatmeal breakfast is bad now and I should go back to bacon and eggs? sigh. Has anyone tried this paleo business, and to what effect? edit: and more importantly, I should have added, is there science behind it? Shame on me.
- cperciva 16y ago
  I have no idea what to make of it and no real idea if it is credible It isn't credible. The article claims that removing grains from your diet will prevent "Infertility, Type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, vitiligo, narcolepsy, schizophrenia, autism, depression, huntington's, non-hodgkin's lymphoma, hypothyrodism, and porphyria". This would be pretty astonishing if it were true... especially given that two of these conditions (type 1 diabetes and autism) often develop before children start eating grains. Astonishing claims require astonishing evidence -- and the article provides absolutely no evidence at all.
  - ericb 16y ago
    What I was more wondering if there is credible info elsewhere, like the book (I've never read it). Agreed the claims seem far fetched.
    - robchez 16y ago
      Check out the success stories at the http://www.marksdailyapple.com http://www.marksdailyapple.com forums . The site also has hundreds of articles on everything about the diet and lifestyle.
  - noelchurchill 16y ago
    especially given that two of these conditions (type 1 diabetes and autism) often develop before children start eating grains Grains are a staple in most baby formulas. http://www.gerber.com/SupportedSitter/Products/Cereal_with_DHA.aspx?PLineId=528da3ed-2381-458a-9b63-8f5a3c73bb4e&PCatId=1ed6eb6b-4828-400b-be86-9c6491a530d5&PMilestoneId=bb42dc52-07fd-48a4-95c4-472cc12597eb# http://www.gerber.com/SupportedSitter/Products/Cereal_with_D...
  - wvl 16y ago
    The article does not claim that at all. In fact, it says: Here is a short list of the problems associated with leaky gut and the autoimmune response
- jat850 16y ago
  I have tried paleo, lacto-paleo, low-carb, and some variants in between. Not because I put any great stock in them, but because I wanted to observe their effects on my body. In all cases, I did lose weight (I am not anywhere near overweight, I am actually in quite good shape, exercise regularly, and have a generally healthy diet to begin with). I understand this to be normal, especially in males, to lose weight fairly quickly, and then plateau out. Women experience mixed results, but it's generally a slower process for them to begin seeing a difference. From a health perspective, I honestly cannot put any stock into this article or any other proponents of these diets. The claims made in this article border on irresponsible, to the point where it sounds so much like any other miracle diet. There is NO way anyone should undertake any major change to their diet without good reasoning, and consulting a physician or qualified nutritionist. Your gym trainer is not a qualified source. Neither is a random website. Bodies are too unique to fall into some one-size-fits-all diet scheme for anyone.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  It's nonsensical faddish bullshit. Some (<1%) people do have problems digesting gluten; it's called Coeliac (or Celiac) disease. My sister has it, along with several other members of the family. It takes some adjustment but there are many substitute foods available. It's more prevalent among people of Irish or Spanish ancestry, hardly exists in Asian people. So maybe Mr Ferris has this problem. That doesn't mean that everyone else does, though this isn't the first time I've seen someone with a digestive condition go on a crusade about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeliac_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeliac_disease I am so tired of adapting to what is "good" only to have that change. I suggest you listen to your own body instead of attention-seeking pundits. We all need some mix of protein, carbohydrates, fiber, lipids and vitamins. too much or too little of any one thing is unhealthy; moderate exercise is good, moderate alcohol consumption is OK, smoking is quite unhealthy; you should check your blood pressure every so often. Obviously if you only crave one kind of food or some food that doesn't exist in nature something is a bit out of whack, but otherwise you should eat whatever gives you sufficient energy and trouble-free digestion. Blog posts like this are the mental equivalent of 'magic dietary supplements'; a masculinized hipster version of those vapid magazines at the checkout stand. 'Blank: the silent killer in your refrigerator'; 'The seven blanks every man/woman/parent/ needs to know'; 'what your [professional] won't tell you (so give me your money instead'; 'Blank: the new rules'....zzzzz. 90% of health and lifestyle articles are for people who can't or won't read science news. Get yourself a first-year nursing textbook on nutrition instead.
  - beagle3 16y ago
    I discovered about 20 years ago that wheat products, and independently, yeast products (and especially bread which contains both) make me feel bad. Not throw-up bad or fever bad -- just bad, tired, puffed up. I've tried to get a diagnosis to no avail. Celiac was ruled out by lab testing, and as a result doctors started suggesting it might be a psychological problem. Me, I listen to my body. And re "nonsensical faddish bullshit", that describes practically all accepted nutritional science these days. The "calories in - calories out" lacks any scientific basis, and is disproved in just about every experiment -- yet it is somehow considered true. Personally, I consider this anecdotal theory just as valid as what your average nutritionist would tell you. (References: Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories"; Roberts "What makes food fattening"; Cabanac)
- kareemm 16y ago
  Dr Kurt Harris, MD writes a great blog about Paleo Nutrition that you may find useful: http://www.paleonu.com/get-started http://www.paleonu.com/get-started When it comes to nutrition, I'd also recommend foregoing science when studies aren't available (gasp) and, as InfinityX0 suggested, try different things and do what works best for you.
  - tbrownaw 16y ago
    "Let's try it and see what happens" really is the core of science, all the complicated shit is just figuring out the most useful "it" to try and being extra certain that the "what happens" really was due to the "it" that you tried. Foregoing science would mean deciding whether it works based on what your astrologer or the most recent "expert" says, rather than whether it can actually be observed (apparently) working.
annajohnson 16y ago
Do a search on the Internet and you'll find more arguments - from highly credentialed doctors and nutritionists along with plenty of unqualified 'diet fundamentalists' - for and against the idea that gluten is the culprit behind so many health issues. Personally, I really DO feel fine on a largely Mediterranean diet complete with plenty of bread and pasta. I'm also fit and actually underweight (according to BMI calculators). I feel great health-wise and am a positive, up-beat, happy person. So I certainly see no need to stop eating gluten. And here's what I don't get about the idea that a paleo diet is the key to a long life and overcoming the obesity crisis: why did the obesity crisis only come about in the last part of 20th century, hundreds of years after most people (in developed nations at least) had abandoned paleo diets?
- twillerelator 16y ago
  >why did the obesity crisis only come about in the last part of 20th century I can guess at two factors. Firstly, food started to get really cheap in the 1960s. Secondly, and not entirely unrelatedly, since that time we haven't suffered a major war or plague. (Up till this point, European history had more or less consisted of wars and plagues.) Instead people have enjoyed prosperity with more and more attendant consumption, not just of food, but of entertainment and culture. Here's the potentially controversial bit: in my experience, cultural consumption is enhanced by 'lower level' consumption such as eating rich food and drinking coffee and alcohol. The reason these help is (paradoxically) because they distress the body, causing the brain to compensate by secreting natural sedatives. These in turn allow the mind to race, temporarily free from the constraints of fear and worry. Gluten, being a lectin, is a stressor of animal intestines. Hence bread, cakes and pasta serve admirably in this regard.
- chipsy 16y ago
  The real choice here is whether to live with an "average diet" and thus face average risk rates, or experiment on yourself and try to improve your chances. Paleo targets overall health, not specifically fat reduction or cardiovascular health. That means that one of its goals is to reduce or eliminate things like long-term degenerative diseases or psychological problems, things which we decided, a long, long time ago, to accept as "natural occurrences" that are manageable only with medication, and not issues of dietary intake. This is a bold goal, of course, so it's right to be skeptical. If it really works, it can be tested. Our bias against the radical ideas comes from only being able to look backwards a few generations of people, all of whom have had largely the same diet. It is only fairly recently that we've gotten this explosion of experimental diet strategies, aided by new research and more diverse food availability. I'm into trying them as a kind of hobby and form of general life-improvement, myself, and for people who suffer from diseases with no known medicinal cure, it offers a lot of hope. If we are looking only for a culprit for late-twentieth-century obesity, gluten doesn't enter into it. Instead we should look towards the changes in average diet over that time - i.e. increased intake of carbs, refined(fiberless) carbs, and carbs from sugar, and a shift away from animal fats and pressed crude vegetable oils towards solvent-extracted and refined vegetable oils. To explain a broad effect in the population, one has to look towards broad changes, and those are the main things that have changed. Side note: The popular tendency to emphasize vegetables and/or fruits in diet holds a lot of commercial appeal(since fresh plant foods have difficult, expensive storage logistics, making them more prestigious, and fruits can have their sugar concentrated with drying or juicing, turning them into easily-saleable vice goods) but it's a form of feel-good bikeshedding. The "80% of the problem" issues are different, broader, and harder to completely solve: ideal fats/carbs/protein balance, recognition of allergies, intolerances, and toxicity, and price/time/quality/sustainability ratios. A real solution to those things needs both top-down cooperation and bottom-up education. I personally haven't seen a huge difference in trying gluten/caesin-free, except possibly for withdrawal symptoms that cumulate in the devouring of multiple bowls of milk and cereal. I may try it again in the future, but while I can usually avoid gluten, I find it particularly hard to get rid of dairy; it helps calm down coffee's acidity, and cheese is one of my preferred snacks when out of the house.
InfinityX0 16y ago
Here's the problem with diet studies in general - they take ages to pan out. Because of that, there's varying degrees of belief in whether or not something is correct or incorrect, and even in cases where some breakthrough has been made, it takes ages to determine whether or not the choice was a correct one or not. This is the same reason why certain food products sales largely come down to packaging - how can I really know the effect a protein supplement is making on my muscle growth due to the many other HUGE factors that come into play? Could I have done better without it? Same with insurance plans, investments, etc - at the end of the day many of these products end up getting bought and sold due more to the marketing savvy of their business departments more than the efficacy of the products themselves. I'm slightly ranting but I think, food wise, the best way to judge whether or not something is good for you is quite simply, how it makes you feel immediately afterwards. If I eat too many carbs, I feel like crap. If I eat a Carl's Jr burger, I feel like crap. If I eat lean meat and fruits, I feel great. If I go overboard, I can hardly feel it. If I drink soda, I feel like crap. And so it goes. I really think it's that simple - don't pollute your head with varying degrees of this stuff - if it makes you feel good, and that feeling STAYS even if you don't eat/drink it (see: withdrawals) it's probably damn good for you and you should keep consuming it. Similarly, reverse the points to decide what you SHOULDN'T be consuming.
- wvl 16y ago
  Which is why the message in The Paleo Soltuion makes sense: "Eat real food". Any food that has an ingredients list likely also contains sugar, salt, and/or ingredients with names that you cannot pronounce. I think you also have to take a bit of a longer term picture. How you feel immediately afterwards is important, but days, weeks are important too. I would advise people to read this book, and give it a try for 30 days. If, after 30 days you decided to start eating your grains again, you might find like I did that inflammation becomes quite noticeable (such as achy joints).
- ohmygodel 16y ago
  "I'm slightly ranting but I think, food wise, the best way to judge whether or not something is good for you is quite simply, how it makes you feel immediately afterwards... I really think it's that simple." Sorry, this really doesn't make sense to me. Do you think people eat fatty, sugary, salty foods because it makes them feel bad? No, it makes them feel great. But, you may say, that is only temporary pleasure. They won't feel great a few hours later when their blood sugar crashes. One should, you could argue, look at how you feel all day. But then why stop at one day? Why not look at your happiness over years. Maybe that diet that makes you feel good during the day slowly causes a disease, such as cancer, that REALLY makes you feel bad later. This could, for example, be the effect of eating a lot of red meat. "Eat what makes you feel good" is simple and appealing advice. Like most complex issues, however, a simple and appealing solution is not likely to be the best.
TGJ 16y ago
Call me crazy but the book linked at the end of the article was published September 14th and there are already 40 five star reviews posted. Which given the idea that it's 'diet' lifestyle change would mean time would be needed to actually see if the content pans out. I start feeling iffy any time another 'this food is bad' book comes along and with those reviews, that puts it into the questionable category.
- wvl 16y ago
  Robb Wolf has been writing about nutrition and doing nutrition seminars for many years now. Many people have recommended and advocated for the high quality articles and podcasts he has written and put out there. So, it is completely understandable that anyone who has preordered the book (myself included, should get it tomorrow) will read and review it to help boost sales of the book (and the message it contains). Besides, this is not a "this food is bad" diet scheme at all. This book is just the first, updated, all in one place, quality description of what paleo means.
  - TGJ 16y ago
    And you sound just like the followup to a forum question on amazon by a person asking the same question that I was.
runT1ME 16y ago
I'm curious if there are societies or cultures that eat significantly less grain than others. Surely looking at a large population's diet and finding a correlation to the diseases mentioned could shed some light into his claims...
- robchez 16y ago
  The Inuits of North America. Lifespan of Inuits - http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-and-lifespan-of-inuit.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-and-... Cancer in Inuit Populations - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18760245 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18760245 Cardio-Vascular-Disease - http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/83/6/S1483.pdf http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/83/6/S1483.pdf Fat Metabolism in Alaskan Eskimoes - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15427668 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15427668 Just some.
- tfinster 16y ago
  The Kitavans are an isolated tribe that eat almost no grains (though lots of carbs - fruits & vegetables) and are virtually free of cardiovascular disease. All while smoking excessively. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/cardiovascular-risk-factors-on-kitava.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/cardiovascular...
santry 16y ago
> DINNER: Grilled salmon, roasted green beans, side salad Aren't green beans legumes?
- tomhoward 16y ago
  It's not black/white but they're generally classed as vegetables, and they don't have the nutritional problems of bona fide legumes.
ohmygodel 16y ago
I follow a paleo diet strictly on weekdays, and for probably 75% of my calories on weekends. I've been doing this for a few months. I'm basically doing this as an experiment - the argument that we should eat what we evolved eating is compelling as a general principle. I haven't lost or gained weight. My workouts haven't been much worse or much better. I don't notice a difference in energy levels, although I find it harder to ignore hunger now. My major impressions are that a paleo diet is expensive and inconvenient. This is just my experience. The scientific arguments that I've seen made follow the general pattern of this article: neolithic foods contain chemicals (e.g. lectins, phytates, etc.) that are bad for our bodies. These kinds of arguments are extremely unconvincing. Digestion and metabolism involves thousands of chemicals and reactions. Trying to piece together how it works is important, but a couple isolated components are not nearly enough with which to make judgements for your health. Arguments from personal experience are even worse. If you "feel better" on the diet, are you sure it's the diet? Is it the placebo effect? Is it the fact that you are likely eating more fiber and nutrients? Is it a difference in blood sugar levels that you notice? Even worse, is the advice to cut out foods, and then test how those foods make you feel when reintroduced. Any change can easily be interpreted negatively. Also, your body has adjusted to the new foods (which quite likely caused their own painful adjustment period). Good arguments would make actual health claims, such as 1. The chance that you develop heart disease will fall. 2. The chance that you develop cancer will fall. 3. The diet will prevent some other diseases (e.g. diabetes). 4. Some specific symptoms from some specific diseases will lessen. Currently, this whole fad seems like a big echo chamber of people seeing exactly what they want to see.
- wvl 16y ago
  From the article: Now there is a caveat to this. You only need to be exposed to things like gluten once every ten to fifteen days to keep the gut damaged. This can bedevil people as they “cut back on gluten” but do not notice an improvement in their overall health. I’m sorry but there is not a pink “participant” ribbon given out for doing this “almost correctly.” You need to be 100 percent compliant for thirty days, then see how you do with reintroduction. As for: Is it the fact that you are likely eating more fiber and nutrients? Is it a difference in blood sugar levels that you notice? Those are both directly related to what you are eating. I feel better when my blood sugar levels don't spike -- which is why I'm eating paleo. Also, you didn't really put for an argument as to why the advice to cut out foods then add them back in is bad. If your body has healed itself and is functioning great without grains, then you eat a big pizza -- you will almost surely see how it affects your system.
hugh3 16y ago
The paleo diet is, I think, 99% bullshit combined with 1% right-for-the-wrong-reasons. That 1% does make it worth a look, though, and I personally have lost about 15 lb in the last twelve weeks by (more or less) following it. My BMI is down from 27.4 to 25.7, and I fully expect to get back into ideal weight range within another month or so. I went into it extremely skeptical of almost all the claims, but what I did buy was the claim that you feel a lot more full after eating a meal of meat and vegetables than you do after a meal rich in grains and potatoes. So I tried it, and lo and behold I find it quite easy to eat as much as I feel like of all the allowed foods and still consume only ~2000 calories a day. I also find that I no longer have any craving for anything sweeter than fruit, whereas I used to be able to talk myself into milkshakes and brownies with excessive frequency. I think it's a blood sugar effect -- all the food I eat is low in GI so I'm not getting the blood sugar spikes I used to. This effect might be specific to me personally, though. The fact that the diet supposedly replicates what our distant ancestors ate is important only in that it at least guarantees that you're eating a subset of foods that are nutritionally sufficient. Other side effects? None that I've noticed, neither good nor bad. It's possible I've felt a little bit more tired, but I can't be sure... and in any case that's not unexpected if you're maintaining a 500-calorie-a-day deficit. I should also mention that I'm not quite strict paleo because I eat moderate amounts of dairy -- I'll be damned if I'm giving up milk in my coffee. Speaking of which, I'll be damned if I'm gonna give up coffee, which is also non-paleo. And I'm not one to panic if a salad happens to have croutons, or my fish happens to be crumbed. But breads, potatoes, sugar and beans/legumes are out (I don't buy the logic behind exclusion of beans, but I never really liked beans anyway). In conclusion, it's not a miracle and it's not nearly as amazing as its most far-out proponents claim, but if you need to lose some weight it's worth trying out for a couple of weeks to see what happens (maybe your body chemistry is different to mine, so it might not work for you). If you don't need to lose weight I wouldn't recommend it, because frankly it's hard to eat enough paleo food to maintain weight while physically active. When I've lost enough I think I'll reintroduce grains at breakfast and maybe lunch but keep the paleo dinners.
- commandar 16y ago
  You might be interested in looking into the PaNu approach to paleo.[1] The author of that blog puts a lot of emphasis on focusing on metabolism rather than, as he puts it, food reenactment. e.g., dairy isn't strictly paleo, but he acknowledges that it's an easy way to up fat intake without the type of ill effects that you're more likely to see from glutens. Worth checking out anyway. It's certainly changed the way I approach nutrition, even if I haven't bought into the paleo thing wholesale. >I think it's a blood sugar effect -- all the food I eat is low in GI so I'm not getting the blood sugar spikes I used to. Definitely agree here. I've noticed a definite shift in appetite since I've made a point of limiting my intake of high GI foods. [1] - http://www.paleonu.com/ http://www.paleonu.com/
robchez 16y ago
I started the paleo diet about 6 months ago. In that time I lost about 18kg of fat easier than any other diet I have ever been on. My blood lipids (I was about to start statins for cholesterol) have all improved dramatically in this time, to the point where my doctor is now incredibly interested in the topic. My psoriasis and eczema have all cleaned up dramatically. The crossfit gym I go to has seen massive improvements in lifting etc once people went paleo. And I am finally off the Prozac for anxiety. Needless to say, for the population of n=1, this experiment worked wonders. I know a lot of people won’t take this anecdotal evidence, but if you jump into any of the many paleo forums, you will hear stories like this all the time. If you want a serious easy to follow, health improvement, I highly suggest this diet. For more resources on the topic I suggest a few books. http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/ http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/ - Primal Body Primal Mind by Nora Gedgaudas – Lots of science. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/ - Primal Blueprint by Mark Sisson – Lot more accessible. Give it to your parents etc. http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Gary-Taubes/dp/1400040787 http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Gary-Taubes/dp/14000... - Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes – Very long, but explains where the American Dietary guidelines came from and why they are wrong. (Cliffs notes: http://higher-thought.net/complete-notes-to-good-calories-bad-calories/ http://higher-thought.net/complete-notes-to-good-calories-ba... ) Some excellent blogs/websites: http://www.paleonu.com/ http://www.paleonu.com/ http://freetheanimal.com/ http://freetheanimal.com/ http://www.westonaprice.org/ http://www.westonaprice.org/ http://www.paleoz.com/ http://www.paleoz.com/
- ohmygodel 16y ago
  I think it's irresponsible to recommend a diet to people that has little to no scientific support for the kinds of effects that you promise or imply: weight loss, improved physical and mental health, and longevity. In fact, some possible instantiations of the paleo diet are, I believe, currently considered unhealthy by the medical establishment, such as a diet high in saturated fats, cholesterol, and/or red meats. I notice that none of your references have any serious qualifications to be giving nutritional advice. The most rigorously argued of your sources - "Good Calories, Bad Calories" - is written by a science journalist. The scientific establishment has spend decades and billions of dollars trying to understand nutrition, and these people think they can figure it out by thinking hard and reading some papers? Morover, you can find equally convincing arguments, anecdotes, and "experts" for any of: vegetarianism, raw foodism, veganism, low-carb, etc. What makes the paleo diet different? You can experiment with your own body all you want, but giving drastic dietary advice on such flimsy evidence seems pretty reckless.
araneae 16y ago
The idea that a paleo diet will make you healthier because it's what we evolved to eat is bullshit. Firstly, it assumes that we haven't evolved since modern agriculture, which of course we have; people with ancestors from areas with grain harvesting have more copies of the amylase gene, which produce enzymes that help us to better digest calories. Secondly, it assumes that the "priority" of evolution in paleo times was to optimize our health in our current environment. It wasn't. Our hunter and gatherer ancestors were starving; we were optimized to extract every last calorie from our food. So when simple starches like wheat came around, we evolved to have more copies of the amylase gene - something that does not help us today. The paleo diet works precisely for the opposite of the stated reason. These are foods that our bodies are not evolved to perfectly digest. Uncooked foods are far enough in our evolutionary past that people on raw-only diets consistently lose weight, even if they eat a lot. If they were on the savannah they would die. I'm not saying the diet itself can't be great, just that the entire article could be fodder for Penn & Teller.
- tfinster 16y ago
  > it assumes that we haven't evolved since modern agriculture No one is arguing that we haven't evolved at all. But humanoids have been around for millions of years, and the 10,000 years since the advent of agriculture is a very small evolutionary time step. So the reasoning is more that we haven't evolved enough to fully digest grains without damage to our gut lining. > Our hunter and gatherer ancestors were starving You'd be surprised that a lot of hunter gatherers (HGs) were doing a lot better than that, according to anthropologists. One number cited in Robb Wolf's book is that HGs on average only worked on procuring food 10-15 hours a week, with the rest spent socializing, resting, etc. > people on raw-only diets consistently lose weight, even if they eat a lot Do you have any supporting evidence for this statement? Virtually all foods on the Paleo diet can be eaten raw (meat, seafood, fruits, vegetables, nuts), and are cooked more for taste than digestibility.
  - ohmygodel 16y ago
    "the 10,000 years since the advent of agriculture is a very small evolutionary time step" True, although those 10,000 (I've actually heard 20-40K) years are the most recent ones in our evolution and therefore have more direct bearing on our current state. In addition, humans experienced a population bottleneck around 60,000 that brought us down to 10-20K individuals. Since then, there have been repeated agricultural famines. These stresses should have favored people able to eat the grains that formed the basis of our diet.
rmason 16y ago
I had a well meaning physician suggest a glutten free diet and I tried it for a month. There was absolutely no benefit for me. A very small percentage of the population is affected by this problem. I don't know if there's a way to screen people first for susceptibility but I would think that would be much better advice than a blanket recommendation. But it wouldn't sell as many books would it?

41 points by ericb 16y ago

ericb 16y ago

I submitted this because I have no idea what to make of it and no real idea if it is credible. I am so tired of adapting to what is "good" only to have that change. So my oatmeal breakfast is bad now and I should go back to bacon and eggs? sigh. Has anyone tried this paleo business, and to what effect? edit: and more importantly, I should have added, is there science behind it? Shame on me.

cperciva 16y ago
I have no idea what to make of it and no real idea if it is credible It isn't credible. The article claims that removing grains from your diet will prevent "Infertility, Type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, vitiligo, narcolepsy, schizophrenia, autism, depression, huntington's, non-hodgkin's lymphoma, hypothyrodism, and porphyria". This would be pretty astonishing if it were true... especially given that two of these conditions (type 1 diabetes and autism) often develop before children start eating grains. Astonishing claims require astonishing evidence -- and the article provides absolutely no evidence at all.
- ericb 16y ago
  What I was more wondering if there is credible info elsewhere, like the book (I've never read it). Agreed the claims seem far fetched.
  - robchez 16y ago
    Check out the success stories at the http://www.marksdailyapple.com http://www.marksdailyapple.com forums . The site also has hundreds of articles on everything about the diet and lifestyle.
- noelchurchill 16y ago
  especially given that two of these conditions (type 1 diabetes and autism) often develop before children start eating grains Grains are a staple in most baby formulas. http://www.gerber.com/SupportedSitter/Products/Cereal_with_DHA.aspx?PLineId=528da3ed-2381-458a-9b63-8f5a3c73bb4e&PCatId=1ed6eb6b-4828-400b-be86-9c6491a530d5&PMilestoneId=bb42dc52-07fd-48a4-95c4-472cc12597eb# http://www.gerber.com/SupportedSitter/Products/Cereal_with_D...
- wvl 16y ago
  The article does not claim that at all. In fact, it says: Here is a short list of the problems associated with leaky gut and the autoimmune response
jat850 16y ago
I have tried paleo, lacto-paleo, low-carb, and some variants in between. Not because I put any great stock in them, but because I wanted to observe their effects on my body. In all cases, I did lose weight (I am not anywhere near overweight, I am actually in quite good shape, exercise regularly, and have a generally healthy diet to begin with). I understand this to be normal, especially in males, to lose weight fairly quickly, and then plateau out. Women experience mixed results, but it's generally a slower process for them to begin seeing a difference. From a health perspective, I honestly cannot put any stock into this article or any other proponents of these diets. The claims made in this article border on irresponsible, to the point where it sounds so much like any other miracle diet. There is NO way anyone should undertake any major change to their diet without good reasoning, and consulting a physician or qualified nutritionist. Your gym trainer is not a qualified source. Neither is a random website. Bodies are too unique to fall into some one-size-fits-all diet scheme for anyone.
anigbrowl 16y ago
It's nonsensical faddish bullshit. Some (<1%) people do have problems digesting gluten; it's called Coeliac (or Celiac) disease. My sister has it, along with several other members of the family. It takes some adjustment but there are many substitute foods available. It's more prevalent among people of Irish or Spanish ancestry, hardly exists in Asian people. So maybe Mr Ferris has this problem. That doesn't mean that everyone else does, though this isn't the first time I've seen someone with a digestive condition go on a crusade about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeliac_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeliac_disease I am so tired of adapting to what is "good" only to have that change. I suggest you listen to your own body instead of attention-seeking pundits. We all need some mix of protein, carbohydrates, fiber, lipids and vitamins. too much or too little of any one thing is unhealthy; moderate exercise is good, moderate alcohol consumption is OK, smoking is quite unhealthy; you should check your blood pressure every so often. Obviously if you only crave one kind of food or some food that doesn't exist in nature something is a bit out of whack, but otherwise you should eat whatever gives you sufficient energy and trouble-free digestion. Blog posts like this are the mental equivalent of 'magic dietary supplements'; a masculinized hipster version of those vapid magazines at the checkout stand. 'Blank: the silent killer in your refrigerator'; 'The seven blanks every man/woman/parent/ needs to know'; 'what your [professional] won't tell you (so give me your money instead'; 'Blank: the new rules'....zzzzz. 90% of health and lifestyle articles are for people who can't or won't read science news. Get yourself a first-year nursing textbook on nutrition instead.
- beagle3 16y ago
  I discovered about 20 years ago that wheat products, and independently, yeast products (and especially bread which contains both) make me feel bad. Not throw-up bad or fever bad -- just bad, tired, puffed up. I've tried to get a diagnosis to no avail. Celiac was ruled out by lab testing, and as a result doctors started suggesting it might be a psychological problem. Me, I listen to my body. And re "nonsensical faddish bullshit", that describes practically all accepted nutritional science these days. The "calories in - calories out" lacks any scientific basis, and is disproved in just about every experiment -- yet it is somehow considered true. Personally, I consider this anecdotal theory just as valid as what your average nutritionist would tell you. (References: Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories"; Roberts "What makes food fattening"; Cabanac)
kareemm 16y ago
Dr Kurt Harris, MD writes a great blog about Paleo Nutrition that you may find useful: http://www.paleonu.com/get-started http://www.paleonu.com/get-started When it comes to nutrition, I'd also recommend foregoing science when studies aren't available (gasp) and, as InfinityX0 suggested, try different things and do what works best for you.
- tbrownaw 16y ago
  "Let's try it and see what happens" really is the core of science, all the complicated shit is just figuring out the most useful "it" to try and being extra certain that the "what happens" really was due to the "it" that you tried. Foregoing science would mean deciding whether it works based on what your astrologer or the most recent "expert" says, rather than whether it can actually be observed (apparently) working.

annajohnson 16y ago

Do a search on the Internet and you'll find more arguments - from highly credentialed doctors and nutritionists along with plenty of unqualified 'diet fundamentalists' - for and against the idea that gluten is the culprit behind so many health issues. Personally, I really DO feel fine on a largely Mediterranean diet complete with plenty of bread and pasta. I'm also fit and actually underweight (according to BMI calculators). I feel great health-wise and am a positive, up-beat, happy person. So I certainly see no need to stop eating gluten. And here's what I don't get about the idea that a paleo diet is the key to a long life and overcoming the obesity crisis: why did the obesity crisis only come about in the last part of 20th century, hundreds of years after most people (in developed nations at least) had abandoned paleo diets?

twillerelator 16y ago
>why did the obesity crisis only come about in the last part of 20th century I can guess at two factors. Firstly, food started to get really cheap in the 1960s. Secondly, and not entirely unrelatedly, since that time we haven't suffered a major war or plague. (Up till this point, European history had more or less consisted of wars and plagues.) Instead people have enjoyed prosperity with more and more attendant consumption, not just of food, but of entertainment and culture. Here's the potentially controversial bit: in my experience, cultural consumption is enhanced by 'lower level' consumption such as eating rich food and drinking coffee and alcohol. The reason these help is (paradoxically) because they distress the body, causing the brain to compensate by secreting natural sedatives. These in turn allow the mind to race, temporarily free from the constraints of fear and worry. Gluten, being a lectin, is a stressor of animal intestines. Hence bread, cakes and pasta serve admirably in this regard.
chipsy 16y ago
The real choice here is whether to live with an "average diet" and thus face average risk rates, or experiment on yourself and try to improve your chances. Paleo targets overall health, not specifically fat reduction or cardiovascular health. That means that one of its goals is to reduce or eliminate things like long-term degenerative diseases or psychological problems, things which we decided, a long, long time ago, to accept as "natural occurrences" that are manageable only with medication, and not issues of dietary intake. This is a bold goal, of course, so it's right to be skeptical. If it really works, it can be tested. Our bias against the radical ideas comes from only being able to look backwards a few generations of people, all of whom have had largely the same diet. It is only fairly recently that we've gotten this explosion of experimental diet strategies, aided by new research and more diverse food availability. I'm into trying them as a kind of hobby and form of general life-improvement, myself, and for people who suffer from diseases with no known medicinal cure, it offers a lot of hope. If we are looking only for a culprit for late-twentieth-century obesity, gluten doesn't enter into it. Instead we should look towards the changes in average diet over that time - i.e. increased intake of carbs, refined(fiberless) carbs, and carbs from sugar, and a shift away from animal fats and pressed crude vegetable oils towards solvent-extracted and refined vegetable oils. To explain a broad effect in the population, one has to look towards broad changes, and those are the main things that have changed. Side note: The popular tendency to emphasize vegetables and/or fruits in diet holds a lot of commercial appeal(since fresh plant foods have difficult, expensive storage logistics, making them more prestigious, and fruits can have their sugar concentrated with drying or juicing, turning them into easily-saleable vice goods) but it's a form of feel-good bikeshedding. The "80% of the problem" issues are different, broader, and harder to completely solve: ideal fats/carbs/protein balance, recognition of allergies, intolerances, and toxicity, and price/time/quality/sustainability ratios. A real solution to those things needs both top-down cooperation and bottom-up education. I personally haven't seen a huge difference in trying gluten/caesin-free, except possibly for withdrawal symptoms that cumulate in the devouring of multiple bowls of milk and cereal. I may try it again in the future, but while I can usually avoid gluten, I find it particularly hard to get rid of dairy; it helps calm down coffee's acidity, and cheese is one of my preferred snacks when out of the house.

InfinityX0 16y ago

Here's the problem with diet studies in general - they take ages to pan out. Because of that, there's varying degrees of belief in whether or not something is correct or incorrect, and even in cases where some breakthrough has been made, it takes ages to determine whether or not the choice was a correct one or not. This is the same reason why certain food products sales largely come down to packaging - how can I really know the effect a protein supplement is making on my muscle growth due to the many other HUGE factors that come into play? Could I have done better without it? Same with insurance plans, investments, etc - at the end of the day many of these products end up getting bought and sold due more to the marketing savvy of their business departments more than the efficacy of the products themselves. I'm slightly ranting but I think, food wise, the best way to judge whether or not something is good for you is quite simply, how it makes you feel immediately afterwards. If I eat too many carbs, I feel like crap. If I eat a Carl's Jr burger, I feel like crap. If I eat lean meat and fruits, I feel great. If I go overboard, I can hardly feel it. If I drink soda, I feel like crap. And so it goes. I really think it's that simple - don't pollute your head with varying degrees of this stuff - if it makes you feel good, and that feeling STAYS even if you don't eat/drink it (see: withdrawals) it's probably damn good for you and you should keep consuming it. Similarly, reverse the points to decide what you SHOULDN'T be consuming.

wvl 16y ago
Which is why the message in The Paleo Soltuion makes sense: "Eat real food". Any food that has an ingredients list likely also contains sugar, salt, and/or ingredients with names that you cannot pronounce. I think you also have to take a bit of a longer term picture. How you feel immediately afterwards is important, but days, weeks are important too. I would advise people to read this book, and give it a try for 30 days. If, after 30 days you decided to start eating your grains again, you might find like I did that inflammation becomes quite noticeable (such as achy joints).
ohmygodel 16y ago
"I'm slightly ranting but I think, food wise, the best way to judge whether or not something is good for you is quite simply, how it makes you feel immediately afterwards... I really think it's that simple." Sorry, this really doesn't make sense to me. Do you think people eat fatty, sugary, salty foods because it makes them feel bad? No, it makes them feel great. But, you may say, that is only temporary pleasure. They won't feel great a few hours later when their blood sugar crashes. One should, you could argue, look at how you feel all day. But then why stop at one day? Why not look at your happiness over years. Maybe that diet that makes you feel good during the day slowly causes a disease, such as cancer, that REALLY makes you feel bad later. This could, for example, be the effect of eating a lot of red meat. "Eat what makes you feel good" is simple and appealing advice. Like most complex issues, however, a simple and appealing solution is not likely to be the best.

TGJ 16y ago

Call me crazy but the book linked at the end of the article was published September 14th and there are already 40 five star reviews posted. Which given the idea that it's 'diet' lifestyle change would mean time would be needed to actually see if the content pans out. I start feeling iffy any time another 'this food is bad' book comes along and with those reviews, that puts it into the questionable category.

wvl 16y ago
Robb Wolf has been writing about nutrition and doing nutrition seminars for many years now. Many people have recommended and advocated for the high quality articles and podcasts he has written and put out there. So, it is completely understandable that anyone who has preordered the book (myself included, should get it tomorrow) will read and review it to help boost sales of the book (and the message it contains). Besides, this is not a "this food is bad" diet scheme at all. This book is just the first, updated, all in one place, quality description of what paleo means.
- TGJ 16y ago
  And you sound just like the followup to a forum question on amazon by a person asking the same question that I was.

runT1ME 16y ago

I'm curious if there are societies or cultures that eat significantly less grain than others. Surely looking at a large population's diet and finding a correlation to the diseases mentioned could shed some light into his claims...

robchez 16y ago
The Inuits of North America. Lifespan of Inuits - http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-and-lifespan-of-inuit.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-and-... Cancer in Inuit Populations - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18760245 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18760245 Cardio-Vascular-Disease - http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/83/6/S1483.pdf http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/83/6/S1483.pdf Fat Metabolism in Alaskan Eskimoes - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15427668 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15427668 Just some.
tfinster 16y ago
The Kitavans are an isolated tribe that eat almost no grains (though lots of carbs - fruits & vegetables) and are virtually free of cardiovascular disease. All while smoking excessively. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/cardiovascular-risk-factors-on-kitava.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/cardiovascular...

santry 16y ago

> DINNER: Grilled salmon, roasted green beans, side salad Aren't green beans legumes?

tomhoward 16y ago
It's not black/white but they're generally classed as vegetables, and they don't have the nutritional problems of bona fide legumes.

ohmygodel 16y ago

I follow a paleo diet strictly on weekdays, and for probably 75% of my calories on weekends. I've been doing this for a few months. I'm basically doing this as an experiment - the argument that we should eat what we evolved eating is compelling as a general principle. I haven't lost or gained weight. My workouts haven't been much worse or much better. I don't notice a difference in energy levels, although I find it harder to ignore hunger now. My major impressions are that a paleo diet is expensive and inconvenient. This is just my experience. The scientific arguments that I've seen made follow the general pattern of this article: neolithic foods contain chemicals (e.g. lectins, phytates, etc.) that are bad for our bodies. These kinds of arguments are extremely unconvincing. Digestion and metabolism involves thousands of chemicals and reactions. Trying to piece together how it works is important, but a couple isolated components are not nearly enough with which to make judgements for your health. Arguments from personal experience are even worse. If you "feel better" on the diet, are you sure it's the diet? Is it the placebo effect? Is it the fact that you are likely eating more fiber and nutrients? Is it a difference in blood sugar levels that you notice? Even worse, is the advice to cut out foods, and then test how those foods make you feel when reintroduced. Any change can easily be interpreted negatively. Also, your body has adjusted to the new foods (which quite likely caused their own painful adjustment period). Good arguments would make actual health claims, such as 1. The chance that you develop heart disease will fall. 2. The chance that you develop cancer will fall. 3. The diet will prevent some other diseases (e.g. diabetes). 4. Some specific symptoms from some specific diseases will lessen. Currently, this whole fad seems like a big echo chamber of people seeing exactly what they want to see.

wvl 16y ago
From the article: Now there is a caveat to this. You only need to be exposed to things like gluten once every ten to fifteen days to keep the gut damaged. This can bedevil people as they “cut back on gluten” but do not notice an improvement in their overall health. I’m sorry but there is not a pink “participant” ribbon given out for doing this “almost correctly.” You need to be 100 percent compliant for thirty days, then see how you do with reintroduction. As for: Is it the fact that you are likely eating more fiber and nutrients? Is it a difference in blood sugar levels that you notice? Those are both directly related to what you are eating. I feel better when my blood sugar levels don't spike -- which is why I'm eating paleo. Also, you didn't really put for an argument as to why the advice to cut out foods then add them back in is bad. If your body has healed itself and is functioning great without grains, then you eat a big pizza -- you will almost surely see how it affects your system.

hugh3 16y ago

The paleo diet is, I think, 99% bullshit combined with 1% right-for-the-wrong-reasons. That 1% does make it worth a look, though, and I personally have lost about 15 lb in the last twelve weeks by (more or less) following it. My BMI is down from 27.4 to 25.7, and I fully expect to get back into ideal weight range within another month or so. I went into it extremely skeptical of almost all the claims, but what I did buy was the claim that you feel a lot more full after eating a meal of meat and vegetables than you do after a meal rich in grains and potatoes. So I tried it, and lo and behold I find it quite easy to eat as much as I feel like of all the allowed foods and still consume only ~2000 calories a day. I also find that I no longer have any craving for anything sweeter than fruit, whereas I used to be able to talk myself into milkshakes and brownies with excessive frequency. I think it's a blood sugar effect -- all the food I eat is low in GI so I'm not getting the blood sugar spikes I used to. This effect might be specific to me personally, though. The fact that the diet supposedly replicates what our distant ancestors ate is important only in that it at least guarantees that you're eating a subset of foods that are nutritionally sufficient. Other side effects? None that I've noticed, neither good nor bad. It's possible I've felt a little bit more tired, but I can't be sure... and in any case that's not unexpected if you're maintaining a 500-calorie-a-day deficit. I should also mention that I'm not quite strict paleo because I eat moderate amounts of dairy -- I'll be damned if I'm giving up milk in my coffee. Speaking of which, I'll be damned if I'm gonna give up coffee, which is also non-paleo. And I'm not one to panic if a salad happens to have croutons, or my fish happens to be crumbed. But breads, potatoes, sugar and beans/legumes are out (I don't buy the logic behind exclusion of beans, but I never really liked beans anyway). In conclusion, it's not a miracle and it's not nearly as amazing as its most far-out proponents claim, but if you need to lose some weight it's worth trying out for a couple of weeks to see what happens (maybe your body chemistry is different to mine, so it might not work for you). If you don't need to lose weight I wouldn't recommend it, because frankly it's hard to eat enough paleo food to maintain weight while physically active. When I've lost enough I think I'll reintroduce grains at breakfast and maybe lunch but keep the paleo dinners.

commandar 16y ago
You might be interested in looking into the PaNu approach to paleo.[1] The author of that blog puts a lot of emphasis on focusing on metabolism rather than, as he puts it, food reenactment. e.g., dairy isn't strictly paleo, but he acknowledges that it's an easy way to up fat intake without the type of ill effects that you're more likely to see from glutens. Worth checking out anyway. It's certainly changed the way I approach nutrition, even if I haven't bought into the paleo thing wholesale. >I think it's a blood sugar effect -- all the food I eat is low in GI so I'm not getting the blood sugar spikes I used to. Definitely agree here. I've noticed a definite shift in appetite since I've made a point of limiting my intake of high GI foods. [1] - http://www.paleonu.com/ http://www.paleonu.com/

robchez 16y ago

I started the paleo diet about 6 months ago. In that time I lost about 18kg of fat easier than any other diet I have ever been on. My blood lipids (I was about to start statins for cholesterol) have all improved dramatically in this time, to the point where my doctor is now incredibly interested in the topic. My psoriasis and eczema have all cleaned up dramatically. The crossfit gym I go to has seen massive improvements in lifting etc once people went paleo. And I am finally off the Prozac for anxiety. Needless to say, for the population of n=1, this experiment worked wonders. I know a lot of people won’t take this anecdotal evidence, but if you jump into any of the many paleo forums, you will hear stories like this all the time. If you want a serious easy to follow, health improvement, I highly suggest this diet. For more resources on the topic I suggest a few books. http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/ http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/ - Primal Body Primal Mind by Nora Gedgaudas – Lots of science. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/ - Primal Blueprint by Mark Sisson – Lot more accessible. Give it to your parents etc. http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Gary-Taubes/dp/1400040787 http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Gary-Taubes/dp/14000... - Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes – Very long, but explains where the American Dietary guidelines came from and why they are wrong. (Cliffs notes: http://higher-thought.net/complete-notes-to-good-calories-bad-calories/ http://higher-thought.net/complete-notes-to-good-calories-ba... ) Some excellent blogs/websites: http://www.paleonu.com/ http://www.paleonu.com/ http://freetheanimal.com/ http://freetheanimal.com/ http://www.westonaprice.org/ http://www.westonaprice.org/ http://www.paleoz.com/ http://www.paleoz.com/

ohmygodel 16y ago
I think it's irresponsible to recommend a diet to people that has little to no scientific support for the kinds of effects that you promise or imply: weight loss, improved physical and mental health, and longevity. In fact, some possible instantiations of the paleo diet are, I believe, currently considered unhealthy by the medical establishment, such as a diet high in saturated fats, cholesterol, and/or red meats. I notice that none of your references have any serious qualifications to be giving nutritional advice. The most rigorously argued of your sources - "Good Calories, Bad Calories" - is written by a science journalist. The scientific establishment has spend decades and billions of dollars trying to understand nutrition, and these people think they can figure it out by thinking hard and reading some papers? Morover, you can find equally convincing arguments, anecdotes, and "experts" for any of: vegetarianism, raw foodism, veganism, low-carb, etc. What makes the paleo diet different? You can experiment with your own body all you want, but giving drastic dietary advice on such flimsy evidence seems pretty reckless.

araneae 16y ago

The idea that a paleo diet will make you healthier because it's what we evolved to eat is bullshit. Firstly, it assumes that we haven't evolved since modern agriculture, which of course we have; people with ancestors from areas with grain harvesting have more copies of the amylase gene, which produce enzymes that help us to better digest calories. Secondly, it assumes that the "priority" of evolution in paleo times was to optimize our health in our current environment. It wasn't. Our hunter and gatherer ancestors were starving; we were optimized to extract every last calorie from our food. So when simple starches like wheat came around, we evolved to have more copies of the amylase gene - something that does not help us today. The paleo diet works precisely for the opposite of the stated reason. These are foods that our bodies are not evolved to perfectly digest. Uncooked foods are far enough in our evolutionary past that people on raw-only diets consistently lose weight, even if they eat a lot. If they were on the savannah they would die. I'm not saying the diet itself can't be great, just that the entire article could be fodder for Penn & Teller.

tfinster 16y ago
> it assumes that we haven't evolved since modern agriculture No one is arguing that we haven't evolved at all. But humanoids have been around for millions of years, and the 10,000 years since the advent of agriculture is a very small evolutionary time step. So the reasoning is more that we haven't evolved enough to fully digest grains without damage to our gut lining. > Our hunter and gatherer ancestors were starving You'd be surprised that a lot of hunter gatherers (HGs) were doing a lot better than that, according to anthropologists. One number cited in Robb Wolf's book is that HGs on average only worked on procuring food 10-15 hours a week, with the rest spent socializing, resting, etc. > people on raw-only diets consistently lose weight, even if they eat a lot Do you have any supporting evidence for this statement? Virtually all foods on the Paleo diet can be eaten raw (meat, seafood, fruits, vegetables, nuts), and are cooked more for taste than digestibility.
- ohmygodel 16y ago
  "the 10,000 years since the advent of agriculture is a very small evolutionary time step" True, although those 10,000 (I've actually heard 20-40K) years are the most recent ones in our evolution and therefore have more direct bearing on our current state. In addition, humans experienced a population bottleneck around 60,000 that brought us down to 10-20K individuals. Since then, there have been repeated agricultural famines. These stresses should have favored people able to eat the grains that formed the basis of our diet.

rmason 16y ago

I had a well meaning physician suggest a glutten free diet and I tried it for a month. There was absolutely no benefit for me. A very small percentage of the population is affected by this problem. I don't know if there's a way to screen people first for susceptibility but I would think that would be much better advice than a blanket recommendation. But it wouldn't sell as many books would it?