The Paleo Diet Debunked?

[pirateradio]

I agree, but the basis of the argument that it is an evolutionary basis for the diet is flawed. People descended from tropical environs perform better on a high fruit diet, people descended from cold environs (think Siberia, Tibet, far northern Americas) tend to do best of animal proteins and fat. The biggest problem still remains that there is no one size fits all. But the paleo diet is certainly a healthy balanced diet of whole foods that makes a good starting point for anyone no hasn't yet figured out the right diet for them.

That being said, I don't eat a paleo diet, just a regular balanced diet consisting of whole, unprocessed foods (mostly).

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Basically, people ate what they had at hand. People in tropical areas probably had a lot more abundance of choices, in colder climates, it would be a lot more limited, in winter they would be living on meat, maybe dairy, and whatever they could find that was still out there in the cold, roots and tubers and such. The problem with the evolutionary argument is that man has evolved over millions of years, and our bodies can digest a wide range of foods, and early man ate simple carbs, they existed, there were wild grains and such they probably ate, if not cultivated it. I can also tell you that early man often lacked things they needed, dietary deficiencies were pretty common based on studying fossilized remains. 

 

There is real basis behind what grains do to the human body, the glycolic reactions and so forth, there is no doubt, but it isn't that man wasn't meant to eat grains, it is that our bodies are not good at dealing with a lot of them, and yeah, that is probably evolution and well as primate biology (I have never read anything about the great apes and grains per se, but  know they are fed grain based products, including something called monkey chow that we give our parrot at night as a nightime snack...). Justifying eating a paleo style diet based on evolution is a sales gimmick, not a reasonable approach IMO. 

[Kobnach]

When I mentioned the paleo diet to my sister, her first comment was "how many insects are they eating?" Another person asked about worms. Also on the menu, almost certainly, would be all kinds of scavenged and slightly "off" foods. It would take a lot of convincing for me to prefer a truly Paleolithic diet - or to have much sympathy for a so-called Paleolithic diet that isn't really Paleolithic.

 

In that vein, let me introduce you to the ready-to-eat food bar at my local Whole Foods Market. It now has a Paleo section - no insects or worms, but plenty of tofu. Somehow I can't imagine nomadic pre-agriculture humans having either the tech or the motivation to produce tofu. Any soybeans they found probably went into some kind of generic stew, along with anything else they had available - presuming they were dry enough not to be edible raw.

 

I should also mention that I read and appreciated the book PaleoFantasy, which is probably why I noticed the "Paleo" tofu dish.

 

On the other hand, a diet that attempted to reduce processed foods strikes me as a good idea. But why not call it what it is, and not invoke fantasies of mighty Paleolithic hunters subsisting primarily on meat - mostly from large animals at that? Why tangle reduced carbs in with reduction of processed foods?  And why not recognize that humans kept evolving after the Paleolithic, which is why many of us can happily consume milk as adults? If I'm going to be true to my Northern European genes, I should have cheese and butter on my menu.

[Loren Wade]

When I mentioned the paleo diet to my sister, her first comment was "how many insects are they eating?" Another person asked about worms. Also on the menu, almost certainly, would be all kinds of scavenged and slightly "off" foods. It would take a lot of convincing for me to prefer a truly Paleolithic diet - or to have much sympathy for a so-called Paleolithic diet that isn't really Paleolithic.

In that vein, let me introduce you to the ready-to-eat food bar at my local Whole Foods Market. It now has a Paleo section - no insects or worms, but plenty of tofu. Somehow I can't imagine nomadic pre-agriculture humans having either the tech or the motivation to produce tofu. Any soybeans they found probably went into some kind of generic stew, along with anything else they had available - presuming they were dry enough not to be edible raw.

I should also mention that I read and appreciated the book PaleoFantasy, which is probably why I noticed the "Paleo" tofu dish.

On the other hand, a diet that attempted to reduce processed foods strikes me as a good idea. But why not call it what it is, and not invoke fantasies of mighty Paleolithic hunters subsisting primarily on meat - mostly from large animals at that? Why tangle reduced carbs in with reduction of processed foods? And why not recognize that humans kept evolving after the Paleolithic, which is why many of us can happily consume milk as adults? If I'm going to be true to my Northern European genes, I should have cheese and butter on my menu.

Paleo doesn't mean reduced carbs. Re: humans evolving... We could not have evolved that significantly to make a diet based on Paleolithic nutrition pointless.

The paleo diet of today, with modern science backing it, won't be the same as Paleolithic man. The point is NOT to eat as Paleolithic man did (re: crickets). It's to use that information to create a healthy, sustainable, modern day diet.

These are all large misunderstandings of the paleo diet.

Also, just because Whole Foods thinks tofu is paleo (hint: it's not), doesn't mean that it is.

All of those misunderstandings set aside, if you're willing to read that book, I highly suggest It Starts With Food. Not a word about paleo, but it explains physiologically and biologically why it works.

A lot of Zuk's arguments in the Paleo Fantasy book are really, really silly. Mostly, the problem I see, is that she thinks all paleo eaters are the same. She thinks we think it's a black and white diet that works for everyone, which isn't true. She talks about all of the paleo extremists, but not much about those of us who are nothing like them.

We live normal lives and eat a diet that makes us feel healthy. A diet that even makes sense biologically, according to all recent research.

All of that said, if you want to read about the biology of the human body and why certain foods work and don't, It Starts With a Food explains it well. I'd say if you're willing to read a book about one side, you might as well read the other. But even then, Dallas and Melissa don't take sides. They're very middle-ground and logical about their approach.

[Kobnach]

Paleo doesn't mean reduced carbs. Re: humans evolving... We could not have evolved that significantly to make a diet based on Paleolithic nutrition pointless. The paleo diet of today, with modern science backing it, won't be the same as Paleolithic man. The point is NOT to eat as Paleolithic man did (re: crickets). It's to use that information to create a healthy, sustainable, modern day diet. These are all large misunderstandings of the paleo diet. Also, just because Whole Foods thinks tofu is paleo (hint: it's not), doesn't mean that it is. All of those misunderstandings set aside, if you're willing to read that book, I highly suggest It Starts With Food. Not a word about paleo, but it explains physiologically and biologically why it works. A lot of Zuk's arguments in the Paleo Fantasy book are really, really silly. Mostly, the problem I see, is that she thinks all paleo eaters are the same. She thinks we think it's a black and white diet that works for everyone, which isn't true. She talks about all of the paleo extremists, but not much about those of us who are nothing like them. We live normal lives and eat a diet that makes us feel healthy. A diet that even makes sense biologically, according to all recent research. All of that said, if you want to read about the biology of the human body and why certain foods work and don't, It Starts With a Food explains it well. I'd say if you're willing to read a book about one side, you might as well read the other. But even then, Dallas and Melissa don't take sides. They're very middle-ground and logical about their approach.

Thanks for the book recommendation. I've requested it at my local library - same place I got Paleofantasy - but it looks like I'll be waiting a while - I'm 4th of 4 holds on it, which probably means it's good ;-)

 

I think you are wrong about lack of evolution in the 10,000 or so years we've had agriculture. A lot of people have been living primarily on carbs for many generations, with a lot of selective pressure (i.e. lots of people were dying young). A lot of people have also been keeping cows, and we know their descendants - but not all humans - happily digest milk as adults. So adapting to increased grains (and very little meat) makes sense to me.

 

In the same vein, if we keep on eating junk food for long enough - and if we experience reduced fertility based on health (a big if, in modern times) we'll eventually evolve to tolerance of, or even dependency on that same junk food. The problem, of course, is the human cost - those who aren't well adapted to junk food (most of us) being sick, dying young, failing to have kids, etc. I don't want to personally participate in this, even if it would tend to make our (collective) descendants better adapted to their environment.

 

And that puts us mostly in agreement, except about the name. The name continues to seem just plain silly.

[Jacksson]

Thanks for the book recommendation. I've requested it at my local library - same place I got Paleofantasy - but it looks like I'll be waiting a while - I'm 4th of 4 holds on it, which probably means it's good ;-)

 

I think you are wrong about lack of evolution in the 10,000 or so years we've had agriculture. A lot of people have been living primarily on carbs for many generations, with a lot of selective pressure (i.e. lots of people were dying young). A lot of people have also been keeping cows, and we know their descendants - but not all humans - happily digest milk as adults. So adapting to increased grains (and very little meat) makes sense to me.

 

 

 

I recommend the book often.  I think it is a great resource to get us to start thinking about food.

 

And I dont think those who write about "paleo" are saying not to eat carbs. And the reason for the "no grains" is more because the modern wheat is nothing like the wheat from early agriculture.  The modifications that have been made to wheat have been for the purpose of increased crop yield and not so much for health.  That's pretty much why you see the disdain for the grain.  And as Loren said, I think eating paleo or whatever you want to call it can look a lot different for you than it does for me.  Healthy diets will vary from region to region based on the paleo concept because part of the idea is to eat what is in season. 

 

In the book he recommends, they make a very simple statement that struck me as profound.  Paraphrased they say that basically there is no Switzerland when it comes to food.  Everything you put in your mouth makes you more healthy or less healthy.  Even if we kept it that simple we would be doing ok. 

[Flac Mcfae]

 

And I dont think those who write about "paleo" are saying not to eat carbs. And the reason for the "no grains" is more because the modern wheat is nothing like the wheat from early agriculture.  The modifications that have been made to wheat have been for the purpose of increased crop yield and not so much for health.  That's pretty much why you see the disdain for the grain. 

So I totally botched quoting Jacksson, but this is one of my two beefs with Paleo.  One, unless you are only eating heirloom vegetables, you are eating fruits and veggies that have been genetically modified. Even the heirloom ones have, just to a lesser extent. My second beef is with the concepts of "free range" and "grass fed".  One, a grain is a grass that has been cultivated.  The cows are getting the same negative effects from grass as grain. Most "grass fed"(not all) beef is also receiving the same hormones as grain fed, and in many cases being fed grain to supplement grass and promote growth(for sale purposes). 

   Now does this mean I disagree with the concepts of the Paleo diet? No, not at all.  It makes absolute sense to me to increase my veggies, eat better cuts of meat, organ meat, and avoid calorie dense food, because I am not burning those calories(hence my being at 24% body fat).  Be all this as it may, I am slowly adopting more of the principles to my own lifestyle, cutting out the processed calories, most grains, etc.  People will always disagree, and if you put your faith in something, then no one will change your mind.  Also, as a last point, many of these studies point to a correlation, not necessarily a causation. Eh, there is my less than useful opinion.

[Jacksson]

So I totally botched quoting Jacksson, but this is one of my two beefs with Paleo.  One, unless you are only eating heirloom vegetables, you are eating fruits and veggies that have been genetically modified. Even the heirloom ones have, just to a lesser extent. My second beef is with the concepts of "free range" and "grass fed".  One, a grain is a grass that has been cultivated.  The cows are getting the same negative effects from grass as grain. Most "grass fed"(not all) beef is also receiving the same hormones as grain fed, and in many cases being fed grain to supplement grass and promote growth(for sale purposes). 

  

 

 

I go back to what Loren said earlier (paraphrased anyway).  It's not that we are going to be able to eat exactly as paleolithic man did but we can use information available to make the best choices we can.  Sure, there are those who really get crazy about the specificity of paleo but in my opinion it isnt that specific.  I am at a point now where I dont really sweat what is paleo and what isnt. 

 

As for grass fed, and I am not an expert, but if they claim to be grass "finished" it means they dont get grain at all.  And the farms I have looked into specifically say they dont use the hormones and antibiotics.  I'm sure there are suppliers using grass "fed" and they are grain finished and hormone treated though.  To me, it is about degrees of clean and what you have available and what you can afford.  Maybe a grain finished beef that was at least pastured is better but not best. 

 

To me, the common principles across all "paleo" or "primal" sources make a lot of sense.  Try to find food sources that are free of chemicals and stay away from wheat and sugar.  Respect your body and your environment.  Get some exercise.  That's it. 

[crazyjerseygirl]

I actually think most people's issue with it is the argument that it is the way palaeolithic human's ate, which isn't true. As an actual healthy nutrition plan it is clearly effective. So all the remains is the name.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This has basically been the argument I've heard against the diet.  It goes "Yeah, it's healthy to eat fruits, veggies & meat so go for it, but the concept that we haven't had enough time to evolve into other foods is a load of crock.  Think lactase persistance."

[Kobnach]

I'm 137 pages in to It Starts With Food, and keep wanting to yell at the author. I haven't gotten all the way through, not even far enough to know for sure what he recommends, except that his intro talks approvingly of the paleo diet, but I have seen a lot of questionable conclusions, supported solely by analogy. It doesn't help that he's keeping the science to a minimum, with no footnotes, just a list of references for each chapter. (And it seemed a lot worse before I found that list.)

 

What I know:

- the "Leaky Gut" syndrome isn't accepted by conventional medicine (as the authors admit); I don't know of any scientific (not anecdotal) research supporting it. But it's a cornerstone of this diet.

- when I read that "Franken foods" have been appearing in the last <100 years, and therefore we should go back to the food patterns of 10,000 years ago, I wonder how innumerate the author might be.

- ability to digest milk varies among human adults. Statements made about "most of us" being unable to digest it are extremely implausible, if the "us" refers to any mostly European derived population. And that probably includes the United States, which seems to be the "us" intended. Bottom line, the blanket condemnation of milk products of all kinds sent my bogometer through the roof.

- I'm extremely suspicious of a diet that claims to be useful for IBS but shows no awareness of any difference between soluble and insoluble fiber. It's pretty well known that for a lot of people with IBS, the former is supportive, and the latter can trigger attacks. Put another way, no I'm not going to substitute broccoli for bananas, let alone lettuce or steak for oatmeal. Unless I want to be sick, that is.

- It will be interesting to see if there's any scientific support whatsoever for problems derived from eating non-rancid oils, as compared to other fats, except among those allergic or otherwise sensitive to the specific oils. If the issue is that we shouldn't eat them because they go bad easily, better stay far far far away from all animal products, especially meat. (The claim made is that certain oils - but not other products, apparently, effectively go bad after they are digested and incorporated into our tissues.)

- The idea of everyone not eating anything that anyone has problems with seems like a prescription for starvation. I expect to find that the authors are picking and choosing - some problems get the foods on the black list, others go unmentioned.

 

[SevenofSeven]

Having read this thread for the second time, perhaps a name change from "Paleo Diet" to "Don't eat processed crap and only eat real food diet" might help people understand that we are just trying to get back to basics, a lot of us cannot hunt and gather in the wild, we live in a modern society and we basically want to shed some unhealthy living practises from our lives. The easiest and quickest way to start doing that is by watching what we put in our pie holes.

Each to their own.

[Loren Wade]

I'm 137 pages in to It Starts With Food, and keep wanting to yell at the author. I haven't gotten all the way through, not even far enough to know for sure what he recommends, except that his intro talks approvingly of the paleo diet, but I have seen a lot of questionable conclusions, supported solely by analogy. It doesn't help that he's keeping the science to a minimum, with no footnotes, just a list of references for each chapter. (And it seemed a lot worse before I found that list.)

What I know:

- the "Leaky Gut" syndrome isn't accepted by conventional medicine (as the authors admit); I don't know of any scientific (not anecdotal) research supporting it. But it's a cornerstone of this diet.

- when I read that "Franken foods" have been appearing in the last

- ability to digest milk varies among human adults. Statements made about "most of us" being unable to digest it are extremely implausible, if the "us" refers to any mostly European derived population. And that probably includes the United States, which seems to be the "us" intended. Bottom line, the blanket condemnation of milk products of all kinds sent my bogometer through the roof.

- I'm extremely suspicious of a diet that claims to be useful for IBS but shows no awareness of any difference between soluble and insoluble fiber. It's pretty well known that for a lot of people with IBS, the former is supportive, and the latter can trigger attacks. Put another way, no I'm not going to substitute broccoli for bananas, let alone lettuce or steak for oatmeal. Unless I want to be sick, that is.

- It will be interesting to see if there's any scientific support whatsoever for problems derived from eating non-rancid oils, as compared to other fats, except among those allergic or otherwise sensitive to the specific oils. If the issue is that we shouldn't eat them because they go bad easily, better stay far far far away from all animal products, especially meat. (The claim made is that certain oils - but not other products, apparently, effectively go bad after they are digested and incorporated into our tissues.)

- The idea of everyone not eating anything that anyone has problems with seems like a prescription for starvation. I expect to find that the authors are picking and choosing - some problems get the foods on the black list, others go unmentioned.

Analogies are how laymen understand science. You're missing the point of the book. Check out the master references in the back. These aren't baseless claims. They're based on the most recent studies and science we're aware of.

It's ridiculous to complain they're using analogies and "not science". Then "other foods go unmentioned" because you've not read the whole book yet. Seems to me you're just complaining to complain about it and not giving it a fair shot.

[Kobnach]

Having read this thread for the second time, perhaps a name change from "Paleo Diet" to "Don't eat processed crap and only eat real food diet" might help people understand that we are just trying to get back to basics, a lot of us cannot hunt and gather in the wild, we live in a modern society and we basically want to shed some unhealthy living practises from our lives. The easiest and quickest way to start doing that is by watching what we put in our pie holes.

Each to their own.

 

It looks to my like the paleo diet and It Starts With Food combine two things, which may blend better for some than others

• "Don't eat processed crap and only eat real food"
• Certain real foods are horrible and should not be eaten

The first makes sense to me. The second, not so much.

 

In the paleo diet, I presume the list of "horrible" foods comprises anything we began eating after the Paleolithic.

 

In It Starts With Food the "horrible" list appeared to include all dairy, legumes, and grains, along with potatoes,  juices, most oils, alcohol, and sweeteners.  (Except when I finally reached chapter 19 I discovered that dairy, legumes, and grains, at least, were intended as temporary bans, to be reintroduced as a test eventually, to check individual reactions.)

 

It Starts With Food also has a third principle - eat more fat, less carbs, and don't snack between meals. And eat (animal) protein at every meal.

 

I don't think anyone disagrees with avoiding processed crap ;-)

 

It's the rest that creates controversy, not to mention humour.

[Kobnach]

Analogies are how laymen understand science. You're missing the point of the book. Check out the master references in the back. These aren't baseless claims. They're based on the most recent studies and science we're aware of.

It's ridiculous to complain they're using analogies and "not science". Then "other foods go unmentioned" because you've not read the whole book yet. Seems to me you're just complaining to complain about it and not giving it a fair shot.

 

I am not a scientist. I did, however, get a decent college education, which included both critical thinking and statistics.

 

An analogy may help me understand a concept, but it provides no useful evidence for or against the theory which includes that concept.

 

When I read a book that's pushing me to do something, I would prefer that it make some effort to convince me that this thing is a good idea. The text of this book isn't providing much with any convincing potential.

 

FWIW, I've now made it to the start of the "Meal Map" Appendix, and discovered that part of the initial list of banned foods is included on the principle that "this stuff *might* be harmful to any given individual, so drop it just in case, reintroducing it later. That makes a lot more sense than "some people have problems with it, so no one should eat it" - which was how I was understanding them being put into a category labelled "Less Healthy", along with e.g. artificial sweeteners.

 

I'd really like to find a nice system that works, for getting back the health I had some decades ago, living in Canada, and have somehow lost growing older, and living in a country that prefers cars to any other mode of transportation. That's why I turn my full critical thinking apparatus on any candidate systems - I care about the outcome.

 

So far, though, I suspect that while there are bad and worse lifestyles, _and_ individual variation in what works best, there's no panacea - one has lower limits at 57 than at 27. And if you've been living like a couch potato, don't plan on a career in professional sports. Etc. Etc.   I'd like it to be otherwise, of course. But I'm sure not convinced that this book has anything special.

[El Exorcisto]

I don't think anyone disagrees with avoiding processed crap ;-)

 

I absolutely disagree with that sentiment. Simple carbs are the preferred food of every cell in your body, with the almighty myocyte of course being the one that I myself as a meathead thinks of first. A big bowl of Lucky Charms or Cocoa Puffs pre-workout makes me lift harder, with less fatigue, and faster recovery than even when I ate oatmeal, let alone something as "clean" as a sweet potato. Greek yogurt is a phenomenal source of every amino required by the human body in a concentrated, easy to eat platform. My whey protein powder is processed more than American cheese, and it builds meat, that is proven. Speaking of American cheese, it adds protein, calories, and awesomeness to nearly anything it gets melted upon.

 

That said, I doubt anyone else on this forum commits the way I do when it comes to the meat that I cook. About 90% of every animal that I cook (eggs included) was raised, slaughtered, and processed by yours truly and my family. The only red meat I consume comes from the deer I shoot. When it's gone, I go back to chicken and turkey until next November. Does it somehow make me superior to anyone? Absolutely not. I just condemn the way corporate agriculture raises and processes animals.

 

My lab work is on point, I gain and lose weight appropriate to my goals, and I am "healthier" than I have ever been. Health has come from a heavy dose of iron, not grass fed beef or eliminating grains.

 

How do the BPA and assorted other estrogenics taste in from your plastic water bottle? How about the flame retardant chemicals in your carpet, couch cushions, and car seats? Nevermind the carbon monoxide and particulate being breathed in on your commute to work. We are surrounded by chemicals everywhere that are far more insidious than anything we could eat.

 

The idea of food that has been processed being inherently evil is ludicrous. Sedentary lifestyle and lack of accountability for periods of gluttony is where the problem has always fell with diet. Very few people are willing to look at weight as a factor to be managed and prefer to think there is a universal answer to perfect body composition. You don't get to be a glutton and a Greek god at the same time, no matter what you consume.

 

My big problem with the paleo diet? The glaring defect in it's dogmatic approach that bothers the piss out of me... It neglects the biggest part of paleolithic man's diet. It neglects hardship. The bodyweight of every animal that lives in a temperate or cooler climate, from the antelope to the woodchuck cycles with the seasons, bulking during the good times and cutting with the bad. This is painfully obvious to anyone that has spent time hunting or observing animals through the dead of winter. The paleo diet claims to have the answer to perfect body composition by neglecting half of the equation, which makes it delusional at it's best and an outright con at it's worst.

 

With that whole rant on the table, I don't begrudge anyone from following the paleo diet anymore than I do someone doing Crossfit or P90X. Everyone has goals, but not everyone is willing to commit fully to reach them. Having someone tell you "good food" and "bad food" makes it easier for people who cannot hold themselves to find out what works for them. There are a lot of people that need rules to follow, and those rules are likely infinitely better than what they were doing before. No system designed around rules is ever the ultimate answer for anyone though, let along everyone.

[gloryw]

I hope I'm not fanatical. I do however, feel that everyone should try paleo if they haven't and are having issues. I have done a lot to lose weight and nothing has ever worked for me. Until now. And because of that I find that I do mention LCHF Paleo with IF a lot. I don't want other women who suffer like I did, who try everything and follow the rules and still don't lose weight; who fight constantly with their bodies and all they end up with for months of effort, tracking everything they eat and do, is at best maintaining their already fat bodyweight, who follow the advice of experts to get healthy and end up getting sicker, to have to go through the years of frustration, agony, self doubt, health issues and prejudice that I went through (and continue to deal with, even if it's improving) if they don't have too. Unfortunately my enthusiasm may make it seem like I'm fanatical, when that is not my intent. 

 

Also based on what I'm reading, what most (not all) people seem to have a problem with is the name Paleo Diet. Names are useful for conveying a large amount of information in a small amount of time. When you say "I'm a (insert profession here)" it gives people an idea of what kind of person you are, without you going on a long description. Yes, when you abbreviate information you increase the chances that someone will misunderstand, but for the majority it provides clear and precise information. (so tempted to quote Shakespeare here)

[El Exorcisto]

Fanatacism is a stage of the game that we all go through. You have the Crossfitters and the Rippetoe cult, the paleo nuts and the keto crazies. We all latch on to the system that made us better. Eventually you see through the bullshit and get an understanding of why all of the systems work, not just why the system you like does. At that point the dogma and fanatacism disappears and you can start finding out what works the best for you.

[Waldo]

Fanatacism is a stage of the game that we all go through. You have the Crossfitters and the Rippetoe cult, the paleo nuts and the keto crazies. We all latch on to the system that made us better. Eventually you see through the bullshit and get an understanding of why all of the systems work, not just why the system you like does. At that point the dogma and fanatacism disappears and you can start finding out what works the best for you.

Ah the good 'ol days, when El Exorcisto was part of the Rip cult....

[El Exorcisto]

I was never a card carrying Rippetoe Cultist. I still believe that if you want to play with iron you should be squatting and deadlifting form the start. I've never believed SS or SL were the best program, just the simplest and easiest to understand for a rank novice. GOMAD though, that is some magic that can't be denied.