5 ms·

Disclaimer: I started reading on the paleo diet about a month ago, after friends recommended it as a support for my strength & conditioning routines. I've been

by mekoka 14y ago

Disclaimer: I started reading on the paleo diet about a month ago, after friends recommended it as a support for my strength & conditioning routines. I've been loosely following the guidelines for the past 2 weeks. I do see an improvement in my sleep quality and in the past week have noticed a spike in my swimming endurance. This article highlights one aspect of the scientific community that I abhor, the petty disputes. So on one side we have Cordain, who promotes a new diet that seems to carry some widely documented positive results, but who may be inaccurate in his notion that we haven't had time to adapt to changes in our nutrition in the past 10,000 years and may or may not be extrapolating a bit on other points. On another we have Zuk, hellbent at debunking the former's work, based solely on those arguments. Finally, we have Laura Miller, author of the article, who feels that Zuk's arguments are justification enough to dismiss proponents of the paleo diet almost as a fad. Yes, crickets managed to adapt to their predator in 5 years, but what of the multiple examples of species that just disappeared, when another was introduced in their ecosystem? Cordain is probably wrong in some of his presumptions regarding evolution, but then Zuk just ends up pointing that out without proving anything of interest herself. Does Miller really believe that people who eat paleo do so because the diet is from the paleolithic? Who cares when it's from? A month ago I had only a vague idea of when the paleolithic ended. If you asked me I would've said "hmm, 50k years ago?" What convinced me was its simplicity and results. I read reports and testimonies of people getting better on it and athletes performing on it. Rather than telling me "actually, this isn't quite paleolithic" or "actually, we did have time to adapt", I would be much more interested in a study that debunks those reports, or at least attributes them to something else than the diet. Also, I've not yet read enough on the diet in details, but from what I've garnered of its main lines, there are some specific reasons as to why certain foods should be avoided. How about looking at those arguments and then debunk them? I for one would love proof that the diet is wrong about cereals and legumes.

nqureshi 14y ago
>> "I for one would love proof that the diet is wrong about cereals and legumes." >> "I read reports and testimonies of people getting better on it and athletes performing on it." I think this is the wrong way round. When people make claims that stuff we've been eating for thousands of years (bread, cereals, grains etc.) are actually really bad for us, the burden of proof is on them. If anyone could actually prove that wheat causes weight gain and health problems (independent of other variables), they'd be a good candidate for the next Nobel in Medicine. Most studies I've read show that Paleo is no better or worse than a normal healthy diet. In some cases e.g. when you're an athlete, it'll be actively worse, since carbs are a basic source of fuel. [1] On top of this, Paleo promotes some claims that are ridiculous, e.g. that burning fat for fuel == burning carbs for fuel. They have totally different consequences. Yes, eating lots of carbs is bad for you. So is eating lots of fatty food. Loads of calories and not enough exercise means your body stores fat. That's sort of obvious, and nothing to do with any special properties that 'carbs' have. Just eat plenty of vegetables (esp green / strongly coloured ones), and make sure you get adequate amounts of protein & carbs. To lose weight, make sure calories in < calories out. That's the general pictures studies give us. Be extremely sceptical of anything claiming otherwise. I'm not sure why intelligent people can get so caught up in fads - such as Paleo - that are backed up by pseudo-science. My theory is that they appeal to the contrarian in us - after all, they're delightfully counter-intuitive in some ways (eating lots of steak can be good for me?!). You've got to have contrarian ideas to be really intelligent, but not all contrarianism is good. [1] I say this as a semi-pro runner who has tried running on a Paleo diet and found it disastrous. You cannot burn fat with the same efficiency as you can 'burn' carbs (i.e. use glycogen). It doesn't work that way. And if you still think it does, look up the diets of the top 10 athletes in basically any sport & explain to me why none of them are on Paleo.
- mekoka 14y ago
  >> You're getting all this the wrong way round. When people make claims that stuff we've been eating for thousands of years (bread, cereals, grains etc.) are actually really bad for us, the burden of proof is on them. I'm not sure if this should also apply with stuff that we put inside our body. In any case, not all of us are willing to wait that long, while we obviously see problems with the status quo. I choose to rather just make a judgement call based on social cues. >> On top of that Paleo promotes some claims that are clearly ridiculous, e.g. that burning fat for fuel == burning carbs for fuel. They have totally different consequences. This is inconsistent with anything I've read on this diet, but would be closer to the Low Carb High Fat diet, which I agree would be detrimental to an intense training regiment. May I suggest that you and I were not introduced to the same paleo diet? I recommend that you look up Robb Wolf. >> Yes, eating lots of carbs is bad for you. So is eating lots of fatty food. Or lots of anything. Just eat lots of green stuff, and make sure you get adequate amounts of protein & carbs. To lose weight, make sure calories in < calories out. Oddly, this is very consistent with what is promoted in the diet. >> It mystifies me how otherwise-intelligent people can get so caught up in fads such as Paleo, backed up by flimsy pseudo-science. Attempting to belittle people who choose to try the diet doesn't make you smarter and certainly doesn't prove nor validate your arguments. >> My theory is that they appeal to the contrarian in us - after all, they're delightfully counter-intuitive in some ways (eating lots of steak can be good for me?!). That is indeed only a theory. On the other hand, maybe some of us actually do see some results. >> And if you still think it does, look up the diets of the top 10 athletes in basically any sport & explain to me why none of them are on Paleo. The diet is extremely prevalent in the crossfit circles (it's even increasingly overshadowing the official diet, which is The Zone diet) and mixed martial arts (many of my training mates switch to it prior to competition). During my own research I stumbled upon this interview http://youtu.be/r-WRn8UttXw?t=10m http://youtu.be/r-WRn8UttXw?t=10m (interview starts 10 minutes in the video, somewhere within the first 2 minutes after it begins Joe Rogan mentions having talked to many fighters who are on it). My take away: "otherwise-intelligent people" use the diet as a set of guidelines for improved health and quality of life. You can choose to take it as a religion, but then lots of things just get more difficult. If you practice a sport, you need to adapt the diet to the demands of your discipline. I recommend to look up experts who are more sport oriented (I mentioned Robb Wolf earlier).
cromulent 14y ago
> Does Miller really believe that people who eat paleo do so because the diet is from the paleolithic? People who are on the paleo diet tell me exactly that. Anyway, they seem healthier than before they started, so taking an interest in healthier food consumption seems to work for them. As you say, the outcome is the important thing. The Paleo diet may well have made the hunter-gatherers very healthy. However, as I have already passed their life-expectancy, there seems to be no data supporting whether it will work for my longevity ;)
- derleth 14y ago
  > I have already passed their life-expectancy The reason life expectancies were 35 back then was due to horrible infant and early childhood mortalities. People lived on the close order of 100 years (70-80 or so) back long before we had anything like medicine. For example: > A saeculum is a length of time roughly equal to the potential lifetime of a person or the equivalent of the complete renewal of a human population. [snip] At the time of the reign of emperor Augustus, the Romans decided that a saeculum was 110 years. In other words, if you wanted to make sure everyone who had been alive for some specific event was dead, you had to wait a hundred or so years. Does that sound like the reasoning of people who expected to die before they hit fifty? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum
  - cromulent 14y ago
    You must have missed my emoticon.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Horrible infant mortality, and also horribly dangerous lifestyle (chasing after wild game).
  - jbattle 14y ago
    First, the age of the Roman republic was a long way from the stone age. Second, by then grain was a HUGE part of the diet, so drawing conclusions about life expectancy from Roman traditions is probably not a great example. Third, Romans didn't live that long - here are a list of emperors I could find who died of natural causes... Augustus - 75 Tiberius - 77 Vespasian - 69 Titus - 41 Nerva - 67 Trajan - 63 Hadrian - 62 Antoninus - 74 Marcus Aurelius - 58 I'll stop there - the next century is a drag.
woe 14y ago
The evidence against cereals (and most especially wheat) seems in general to be much more widely accepted than that against legumes; take that as you will. (Or to put it another way: "don't eat wheat" features in a lot more of the newfangled low-carbohydrate diets than "don't eat beans".)
seszett 14y ago
I'm not going to take a side, but just to answer a part of your comment on "species that just disappeared" as, apparently, an argument for saying humans might not have adapted to their new diet. Obviously, humans have not disappeared - quite the contrary in fact - therefore they either have adapted to their new diet, or were already suited for it.
Sharlin 14y ago
As far as I know, almost any diet that's not obviously insane or unhealthy gives satisfactory results if followed diligently. It's not about the specific content, it's not about any pseudo-scientific justifications for the content, it's simply about how easy it is to stay on the diet without lapsing or indulging in any extraneous treats.
rimantas 14y ago
> Does Miller really believe that people who eat paleo do so because > the diet is from the paleolithic? With the recent eco-natural-organic-whatever fad I wouldn't be surprised that some do. Line of thinking would go roughly like this: long time ago->before current technologisation->natural->good. > What convinced me was its simplicity and results. Did you try anything else before without results? It is likely that just starting to care what and how much do you eat will provide results, no matter the name of the diet.
rbanffy 14y ago
> I do see an improvement in my sleep quality and in the past week have noticed a spike in my swimming endurance. Did that coincide with another change? Is your diet the only thing you changed? Did that reflect the results you were expecting?
- mekoka 14y ago
  The diet represents a significant change in my eating habits. I would have to look really hard to find a different cause. I significantly reduced bread, rice, potatoes, pasta, legumes in the last 2 weeks. That's extremely unusual for me. In the same time, I probably ate more veggies than I would in 6 months. Broccoli, cauliflower, celery, lettuce, cucumbers, asparagus, kale, swiss chards, butternut and spaghetti squash and a bunch of other stuff. Some tubes for variety (yams and sweet potatoes). My fruit basket is always full and varied (avocados, papaya, bananas, grapes, apples, pears, oranges, tangerines, etc). I eat eggs, meats (including bacon) and seafood exactly like before. I eat nuts like before. I still drink green tea daily. So far my only previous snacking habit that seems to be "legal" in the new context is plantain chips, I'm not sure if it's really allowed, but I don't care, I'm not changing it. My philosophy regarding diet is to encourage good habits, not discourage bad ones. In other words, fill myself with as much good stuff as not having to crave the bad. My brother bought pizza on friday, I ate it and drank some coke. Yesterday he brought home a sandwich for me, I ate it the same. I won't feel guilty about that. I did have various cravings in my first week, but I simply increased my meal portions the second week and I've been fine for the most part. I stay extended periods without even thinking of chewing on a candy bar. Regarding physical activity, I noticed that I recover better from training and swimming sessions and I also have more endurance. I haven't bought into the grass-fed and organic mindset so far. I'll see where the current regiment carries me in term of performance and well being, before attempting to go "all natural" and see if it really makes a difference.

by mekoka 14y ago

nqureshi 14y ago

>> "I for one would love proof that the diet is wrong about cereals and legumes." >> "I read reports and testimonies of people getting better on it and athletes performing on it." I think this is the wrong way round. When people make claims that stuff we've been eating for thousands of years (bread, cereals, grains etc.) are actually really bad for us, the burden of proof is on them. If anyone could actually prove that wheat causes weight gain and health problems (independent of other variables), they'd be a good candidate for the next Nobel in Medicine. Most studies I've read show that Paleo is no better or worse than a normal healthy diet. In some cases e.g. when you're an athlete, it'll be actively worse, since carbs are a basic source of fuel. [1] On top of this, Paleo promotes some claims that are ridiculous, e.g. that burning fat for fuel == burning carbs for fuel. They have totally different consequences. Yes, eating lots of carbs is bad for you. So is eating lots of fatty food. Loads of calories and not enough exercise means your body stores fat. That's sort of obvious, and nothing to do with any special properties that 'carbs' have. Just eat plenty of vegetables (esp green / strongly coloured ones), and make sure you get adequate amounts of protein & carbs. To lose weight, make sure calories in < calories out. That's the general pictures studies give us. Be extremely sceptical of anything claiming otherwise. I'm not sure why intelligent people can get so caught up in fads - such as Paleo - that are backed up by pseudo-science. My theory is that they appeal to the contrarian in us - after all, they're delightfully counter-intuitive in some ways (eating lots of steak can be good for me?!). You've got to have contrarian ideas to be really intelligent, but not all contrarianism is good. [1] I say this as a semi-pro runner who has tried running on a Paleo diet and found it disastrous. You cannot burn fat with the same efficiency as you can 'burn' carbs (i.e. use glycogen). It doesn't work that way. And if you still think it does, look up the diets of the top 10 athletes in basically any sport & explain to me why none of them are on Paleo.

mekoka 14y ago
>> You're getting all this the wrong way round. When people make claims that stuff we've been eating for thousands of years (bread, cereals, grains etc.) are actually really bad for us, the burden of proof is on them. I'm not sure if this should also apply with stuff that we put inside our body. In any case, not all of us are willing to wait that long, while we obviously see problems with the status quo. I choose to rather just make a judgement call based on social cues. >> On top of that Paleo promotes some claims that are clearly ridiculous, e.g. that burning fat for fuel == burning carbs for fuel. They have totally different consequences. This is inconsistent with anything I've read on this diet, but would be closer to the Low Carb High Fat diet, which I agree would be detrimental to an intense training regiment. May I suggest that you and I were not introduced to the same paleo diet? I recommend that you look up Robb Wolf. >> Yes, eating lots of carbs is bad for you. So is eating lots of fatty food. Or lots of anything. Just eat lots of green stuff, and make sure you get adequate amounts of protein & carbs. To lose weight, make sure calories in < calories out. Oddly, this is very consistent with what is promoted in the diet. >> It mystifies me how otherwise-intelligent people can get so caught up in fads such as Paleo, backed up by flimsy pseudo-science. Attempting to belittle people who choose to try the diet doesn't make you smarter and certainly doesn't prove nor validate your arguments. >> My theory is that they appeal to the contrarian in us - after all, they're delightfully counter-intuitive in some ways (eating lots of steak can be good for me?!). That is indeed only a theory. On the other hand, maybe some of us actually do see some results. >> And if you still think it does, look up the diets of the top 10 athletes in basically any sport & explain to me why none of them are on Paleo. The diet is extremely prevalent in the crossfit circles (it's even increasingly overshadowing the official diet, which is The Zone diet) and mixed martial arts (many of my training mates switch to it prior to competition). During my own research I stumbled upon this interview http://youtu.be/r-WRn8UttXw?t=10m http://youtu.be/r-WRn8UttXw?t=10m (interview starts 10 minutes in the video, somewhere within the first 2 minutes after it begins Joe Rogan mentions having talked to many fighters who are on it). My take away: "otherwise-intelligent people" use the diet as a set of guidelines for improved health and quality of life. You can choose to take it as a religion, but then lots of things just get more difficult. If you practice a sport, you need to adapt the diet to the demands of your discipline. I recommend to look up experts who are more sport oriented (I mentioned Robb Wolf earlier).

cromulent 14y ago

> Does Miller really believe that people who eat paleo do so because the diet is from the paleolithic? People who are on the paleo diet tell me exactly that. Anyway, they seem healthier than before they started, so taking an interest in healthier food consumption seems to work for them. As you say, the outcome is the important thing. The Paleo diet may well have made the hunter-gatherers very healthy. However, as I have already passed their life-expectancy, there seems to be no data supporting whether it will work for my longevity ;)

derleth 14y ago
> I have already passed their life-expectancy The reason life expectancies were 35 back then was due to horrible infant and early childhood mortalities. People lived on the close order of 100 years (70-80 or so) back long before we had anything like medicine. For example: > A saeculum is a length of time roughly equal to the potential lifetime of a person or the equivalent of the complete renewal of a human population. [snip] At the time of the reign of emperor Augustus, the Romans decided that a saeculum was 110 years. In other words, if you wanted to make sure everyone who had been alive for some specific event was dead, you had to wait a hundred or so years. Does that sound like the reasoning of people who expected to die before they hit fifty? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum
- cromulent 14y ago
  You must have missed my emoticon.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Horrible infant mortality, and also horribly dangerous lifestyle (chasing after wild game).
- jbattle 14y ago
  First, the age of the Roman republic was a long way from the stone age. Second, by then grain was a HUGE part of the diet, so drawing conclusions about life expectancy from Roman traditions is probably not a great example. Third, Romans didn't live that long - here are a list of emperors I could find who died of natural causes... Augustus - 75 Tiberius - 77 Vespasian - 69 Titus - 41 Nerva - 67 Trajan - 63 Hadrian - 62 Antoninus - 74 Marcus Aurelius - 58 I'll stop there - the next century is a drag.

woe 14y ago

The evidence against cereals (and most especially wheat) seems in general to be much more widely accepted than that against legumes; take that as you will. (Or to put it another way: "don't eat wheat" features in a lot more of the newfangled low-carbohydrate diets than "don't eat beans".)

seszett 14y ago

I'm not going to take a side, but just to answer a part of your comment on "species that just disappeared" as, apparently, an argument for saying humans might not have adapted to their new diet. Obviously, humans have not disappeared - quite the contrary in fact - therefore they either have adapted to their new diet, or were already suited for it.

Sharlin 14y ago

As far as I know, almost any diet that's not obviously insane or unhealthy gives satisfactory results if followed diligently. It's not about the specific content, it's not about any pseudo-scientific justifications for the content, it's simply about how easy it is to stay on the diet without lapsing or indulging in any extraneous treats.

rimantas 14y ago

> Does Miller really believe that people who eat paleo do so because > the diet is from the paleolithic? With the recent eco-natural-organic-whatever fad I wouldn't be surprised that some do. Line of thinking would go roughly like this: long time ago->before current technologisation->natural->good. > What convinced me was its simplicity and results. Did you try anything else before without results? It is likely that just starting to care what and how much do you eat will provide results, no matter the name of the diet.

rbanffy 14y ago

> I do see an improvement in my sleep quality and in the past week have noticed a spike in my swimming endurance. Did that coincide with another change? Is your diet the only thing you changed? Did that reflect the results you were expecting?

mekoka 14y ago
The diet represents a significant change in my eating habits. I would have to look really hard to find a different cause. I significantly reduced bread, rice, potatoes, pasta, legumes in the last 2 weeks. That's extremely unusual for me. In the same time, I probably ate more veggies than I would in 6 months. Broccoli, cauliflower, celery, lettuce, cucumbers, asparagus, kale, swiss chards, butternut and spaghetti squash and a bunch of other stuff. Some tubes for variety (yams and sweet potatoes). My fruit basket is always full and varied (avocados, papaya, bananas, grapes, apples, pears, oranges, tangerines, etc). I eat eggs, meats (including bacon) and seafood exactly like before. I eat nuts like before. I still drink green tea daily. So far my only previous snacking habit that seems to be "legal" in the new context is plantain chips, I'm not sure if it's really allowed, but I don't care, I'm not changing it. My philosophy regarding diet is to encourage good habits, not discourage bad ones. In other words, fill myself with as much good stuff as not having to crave the bad. My brother bought pizza on friday, I ate it and drank some coke. Yesterday he brought home a sandwich for me, I ate it the same. I won't feel guilty about that. I did have various cravings in my first week, but I simply increased my meal portions the second week and I've been fine for the most part. I stay extended periods without even thinking of chewing on a candy bar. Regarding physical activity, I noticed that I recover better from training and swimming sessions and I also have more endurance. I haven't bought into the grass-fed and organic mindset so far. I'll see where the current regiment carries me in term of performance and well being, before attempting to go "all natural" and see if it really makes a difference.