Topic: paleolithic diet

[bjkpersonal@aim.com]

I'm not going to preach or anything, or even here to start trouble, but to be quite frank...

But there are a lot of problems with that first one being money. Not everyone can afford to buy vegetables, fruit, nuts and lean meat all the time.

...I think that this is a very lame reason to not eat healthy. People in this world, this country in particular, tend to have an exorbitant amount of things that they don't need. Different people put values on different things, but to say that there is not enough money to take care of your body when so much money goes into clothes and cell phones and video games and televisions and computers.

on top of that, it can cost quite a bit less than you might think. I started trying to eat more healthy, and  prepare my own food, and I've been paying far less for food. i can make a smoothie that costs less than 2 bucks to make that is far better and cheaper for me than a 7 dollar big mac meal.

In the end you make your decisions, your priorities. I ate terrible for a long time, but I feel now, that if I want to be an athlete, I should take care of myself, as traceurs our bodies are our high performance equipment, I for one want to make sure I'm maintaining it correctly.

          It is true that the paleolithic diet is very healthy for you (I tried something similar for like 3 months and I felt great), but it's not an issue of me affording it but others affording it.  Not only that, but it's not very good on the environment to eat lots of meats, and grain fed animals aren't nearly as good for us.

          The ability to easily grow food and have it portable is possibly the greatest achievement of mankind.  Without it, we wouldn't be able to live in cities because the entire city would have to be enclosed by naturally growing fruits and vegetables along with free roaming animals, just so people could leave their homes and go straight to the fields/plains/whatevers to gather food and hunt.  Plus, once the rations are low, we'd have to move, abandoning any possibly thought of large-scale structures being built or anything of the sort.

          I remember having a similar conversation about vaccinations.  If your kid isn't vaccinated for Polio, they might get Polio, far worse than the extremely low chance of becoming Autistic.  Now-and-days, these diseases, like Smallpox and Polio, are coming back!  The main reason is because people want to ensure their healthinesses.  The only problem is that it puts other in jeopardy by the non-vaccinated becoming hosts.  If everyone ate paleolithic diets, there would be no such things as skyscrapers and monuments because nobody would be able to get all the food they needed unless is somebody caught and raised the animals (not enough grass) or harvested crops (nothing wrong with that, but makes us harvesters, not gatherers).  I guess, if you want to think about it this way, that it's the sacrifice we pay for cultural and civilizational advancements.

          You can probably come close to eating a paleolithic-related diet by only eating grass-fed animals with no additives or whatever in them and eating a LARGE variation of different organic vegetables (for obvious reasons).  I think it's funny that this has come up because most people suggest a very similar diet to those on a low-carb or no-carb diet.  Most harvestable goods cause insulin spikes once eaten, which is (as far as I know of) one of the big reasons that you don't eat carbs on those diets.  The spikes cause you to retain that energy directly into your fat cells, unlike vegetable (complex) carbohydrates which take just about as long as meat to break down, giving an even stream of energy.

          By the way, my goal when I turn 18 is to completely rid simple carbohydrates (sugar, H.F. corn syrup, grains, pastas, etc.) from my diet, fructose permitted.  I hope I can do it without making myself go crazy. 

Why not? That was just an example though, what I guess I'm asking is can you really get everything you need with this diet? And with milk, besides vitamin d is there anything else you need from it? and would that be fufilled with this diet? im so skeptical baha xP

          People really don't need dairy after infancy stages.  You can argue that it's healthy, but it's truly not necessary to any degree, unless there's no other way you can possibly get Vitamin D, since the sun burnt out and we're still alive somehow. 

[bjkpersonal@aim.com]

In my opinion jumping right in is a bad idea. Just like parkour you don't want to be doing jumps off a 10ft + heights (I have done that before just to show off) and getting hurt and not being able to do it again. If you jump into something right away it might be so unpleasant that you will get discouraged from doing it ever again. Happens to a lot of people who finally start to exercise and decide to run instead of walking first.

Here are the stages that I am doing

1. Drink water, juice that you made, and tea that you make
2. No more vending machines food (candy,chips etc...)
3. No more McDonald's and such unless you are getting a salad without dressing and croutans (they nasty anyway)
4. Eat as little sugar as possible
5. Cut out unhealthy bread (this is were I am right now)
6. No more grains/dairy (prob the hardest stage because we grew up eating this and our bodies are so used to it for energy)
7. Start paleolithic diet with breakfast only in the beginning and move from there

Comments welcome

          Good analogy (I think?) right off the bat.  I'd have to agree with previous repliers and say that the first and sometimes easiest, sometimes hardest step is to replace all beverages with water.  It doesn't make you thirsty or hungry (like pop) and your body will very much appreciate the change.  Plus, it's kind of like drinking chocolate milk after eating chocolate ice cream, everything tastes mediocre when you've had a really good drink.  I switched over to water like a year ago (my family runs on Pepsi and beer) and everything tastes 100 times better afterwards.  Imagine how good things must have tasted in comparison to river water way back when!

1. Drink water, juice that you made, and tea that you make

          I wouldn't recommend juice, rather just whole pieces of fruit.  It's more filling and lets your body know/feel that you just ate 2 pieces of fruit, not just took in the nutrients of 2 pieces of fruit.

3. No more McDonald's and such unless you are getting a salad without dressing and croutans (they nasty anyway)

          Man, make your own salads!  They're delicious, especially if you just toss in some tasty yellow peppers and a good 3 oz. of chicken or steak.  It's one of my favorite things, and it'll fill you up, too. 

          Sounds good, dude.  Good step in a good direction.

[BobT]

          I remember having a similar conversation about vaccinations.  If your kid isn't vaccinated for Polio, they might get Polio, far worse than the extremely low chance of becoming Autistic.  Now-and-days, these diseases, like Smallpox and Polio, are coming back!  The main reason is because people want to ensure their healthinesses.  The only problem is that it puts other in jeopardy by the non-vaccinated becoming hosts.  If everyone ate paleolithic diets, there would be no such things as skyscrapers and monuments because nobody would be able to get all the food they needed unless is somebody caught and raised the animals (not enough grass) or harvested crops (nothing wrong with that, but makes us harvesters, not gatherers).  I guess, if you want to think about it this way, that it's the sacrifice we pay for cultural and civilizational advancements.

Dude, spend less time posting and more time reading.  I don't mean to be too harsh, but in a very short time you've got more posts than I put up in a year and a lot of it is opinion in complete contradiction to reality.  For example, 1 in 150 children in first world countries is diagnosed with autism yearly.  In 2004 there were less than 1200 cases of polio worldwide.  If you think that autism is less debilitating than polio, you've obviously never seen an institutionallized autisic adult.  I don't intend to hijack this thread, so enough said on that topic - PM me if you'd like to argue more about it.

As for a paleo diet - one does not need to be a hunter gatherer to eat paleo.  Food production in developed countries is what it is because of economics.  The food producers make less money from the consumer that the packagers, distributers and retailers.  US consumers expect food to be cheap, which is why they'll accept high fructose corn syrup, corn feed beef & chicken and pesticide laden produce.  Consumers are, in general more worried about saving for a new cell phone, iPod, etc. than what they put in their bodies.

With proper market pressure (the same kind of pressure that's eradicating partially hydrogenated oils from our foods), food production can be shifted towards the paleo end of the spectrum.  Every person who chooses to eat paleo contributes to that market pressure.

Now you can get pis*ed off at me and think I'm trying to flame you - I'm not.  As was posted in another thread, it's nice that you're enthusiatic and wish to contribute. Just please try to temper that with differentiating your opinion from fact.

[Steven Low]

Well, one thing I want to note here is that stuff like corn is ACTUALLY subsidized by the US government because they actually LOSE money to grow that crop. There's a couple other ones like this, and it's kinda sad really because they're subsidizing a crop they think is great for food.. when it's not the best option out there. Well, that and they want to use it for ethanol fuel but even that is losing money as well, heh. So in regards to mass food production because of economics not really -- they could easily grow food that is more healthy but the government is kinda deluded with respect to the "unhealthiness" of certain foods.

[bjkpersonal@aim.com]

          I would like everything that I post to be considered a personal opinion.

          I know that it doesn't require a literal hunter-gatherer lifestyle to eat a paleolithic diet, just that with cultivation, there are consequences.  If you have a gigantic field of one kind of vegetable and a certain bug comes by to eat them, what can you do?  Pesticides aren't very healthy, but it was a good option when it came out.  People also thought (and still do think) that genetically altering foods was a good idea.  That's why we have organic foods.  I personally think that the best option would be to grow your own fruits and vegetables on your own land, but with the world's current population being so high (along with everybody already owning property), it'd be hard for people to move out of close-together housing like apartments and into homes with actual yards.  The whole reference to having a city surrounded by a garden is just that, everybody having a certain section of the overall food that they can eat.  In my opinion, there would be no need for bread and preservable goods if every city had its own food supply.

          As for the vaccination reference, it's a similar conversation, not a different one.  I know the chances, 1 in 150, very low if you ask me.  I've had a retarded cousin, and I've had a friend with an autistic brother.  It's not nice, but imagine, instead of taking care of somebody mentally ill, somebody physically ill.  Badly ill.  The comparison was one of "the worse of two evils" (if you will), along with the good intentions of others.  Nobody wants an autistic child when they think of having kids, but it's just one of those risks, along with birth defects and the such.  I feel as if the progression we've made from cultivating grains far outweighs even the cost of a healthier diet, and we have certain things to support it, such as certain drugs to fight off the negative side effects.  Being able to keep less-perishable foods and concentrated foods have fought off hunger in exchange for consequences in health, but the overall benefit is that we can actually keep the poor alive!  Imagine how hard it would be to have a paleolithic soup kitchen, or to feed entire lunchrooms with these kinds of foods.  It truly is too expensive for many to go with, and I really don't want to hear "well, what if the gov't subsidized it?", because that doesn't seem to be working very well in the corn industry.

          My personal opinion is that the societal benefits of non-natural foods far outweigh the negative side effects.  If you want to use hydrogenated oils as an example of successful removal, you still have hormones, steroids, genetic altering and H.F. corn syrup to go.  Those things don't have almost any positive effects besides lower costs, and now that we can see the negative effects, they should be rid of.  That I can agree in, but overall, I think the paleolithic diet is just one the world's population can't safely support.  It's sad that economics have to get in the way of health, but I can only imagine how bad health was in the American Industrial Revolution..

[Charles Moreland]

Vaccines. In many schools now, they require 7 year old girls to get the HPV vaccine...which is an STD acquired through skin to skin contact vaginally or orally. Seems a little crazy to me. I think we as a society are getting a little too vaccine happy.

In regards to your last comment, does HFCS and easily prepared food (McDonald's) help feed the poorer people in communities? Sure. But it also causes them physical harm in the long run. I'm really confused at what you're trying to say here.

[BobT]

Well, one thing I want to note here is that stuff like corn is ACTUALLY subsidized by the US government because they actually LOSE money to grow that crop. There's a couple other ones like this, and it's kinda sad really because they're subsidizing a crop they think is great for food.. when it's not the best option out there. Well, that and they want to use it for ethanol fuel but even that is losing money as well, heh. So in regards to mass food production because of economics not really -- they could easily grow food that is more healthy but the government is kinda deluded with respect to the "unhealthiness" of certain foods.

Yes, and this is the nature of the economics.  Since it is subsidized, it is profitable for the farmer to grow as opposed to growing broccoli for example.  Unfortunately, standard market pressures will never influence political pork quite like a good lobbyist.  If however, the market was willing to shell out for broccoli such that it became more profitable to grow than corn, the subsidies wouldn't matter.

I agree that the gov't is living in the dark ages in regards to diet and nutrition...

[BobT]

          My personal opinion is that the societal benefits of non-natural foods far outweigh the negative side effects.  If you want to use hydrogenated oils as an example of successful removal, you still have hormones, steroids, genetic altering and H.F. corn syrup to go.  Those things don't have almost any positive effects besides lower costs, and now that we can see the negative effects, they should be rid of.  That I can agree in, but overall, I think the paleolithic diet is just one the world's population can't safely support.  It's sad that economics have to get in the way of health, but I can only imagine how bad health was in the American Industrial Revolution..

This is why I qualified my comment to apply to developed countries. Sure, in a poor and starving nation, food quantity is more critical than quality.  However, in developed nations that can produce a surplus of food, there is ample headroom for the production of higher quality foods (at least until somebody got the brilliant idea to use agricultural resources to fuel cars...).

[Phytolith]

I want to raise an issue with the premise behind paleolithic diet.

I'm a grad student studying physical anthropology, focusing the origins of modern human diet, specifically looking at the plant foods that our ancestors and now-extinct relatives ate.  I look at the starch grains left behind on their tools and stuck in the plaque on their teeth, and my research is showing a trend that directly contradicts what the paleolithic diet presupposes.  Humans have been eating grains and beans for a long time (over 100kyr), at least an order of ten longer than agriculture has been around (since around 10kyr).  That's the direct evidence I've collected, but there is evidence from other researchers that cooking may have been around even longer (on the order of 500kyr-1mya).  So, the whole idea to cut out cooked grains and beans because we aren't evolved to eat them is BS.  More recently, there is strong evidence that the lactase gene (the one responsible for digesting milk) has undergone strong positive selection in the past 8-5kyr in European populations (meaning that these groups are, in fact, adapted to digest milk).

This being said, I am not a nutritionist, so I can't evaluate how good for you or not the diet may be. It makes sense to me to cut out refined sugars and processed foods because these are very very recent (last 50 years or so). However, don't start a hardcore paleolithic diet thinking that you're living up to your evolutionary past, because you're not. 

[Charles Moreland]

More recently, there is strong evidence that the lactase gene (the one responsible for digesting milk) has undergone strong positive selection in the past 8-5kyr in European populations (meaning that these groups are, in fact, adapted to digest milk).

Thanks for the info Amanda! Definitely interesting indeed. In response to the quoted section above, my personal abstinence from milk is mainly for the processing that is involved in mass milk production. If I were rich I'd gladly drink milk raw, but alas, this is not the case.

[Andy Animus Tran]

I've just been backreading this thread a little, and I have one sid ecomment:  Charles, HPV has been linked to cervical cancer ins omething like 97% of cases.  To vaccinate for HPV, it requires that it be done before the age of 12, and the older a woman gets, the more difficult to vaccinate.  The reason for mandatory vaccinations for an STD is to prevent cancer decades later.

[Steven Low]

I want to raise an issue with the premise behind paleolithic diet.

I'm a grad student studying physical anthropology, focusing the origins of modern human diet, specifically looking at the plant foods that our ancestors and now-extinct relatives ate.  I look at the starch grains left behind on their tools and stuck in the plaque on their teeth, and my research is showing a trend that directly contradicts what the paleolithic diet presupposes.  Humans have been eating grains and beans for a long time (over 100kyr), at least an order of ten longer than agriculture has been around (since around 10kyr).  That's the direct evidence I've collected, but there is evidence from other researchers that cooking may have been around even longer (on the order of 500kyr-1mya).  So, the whole idea to cut out cooked grains and beans because we aren't evolved to eat them is BS.  More recently, there is strong evidence that the lactase gene (the one responsible for digesting milk) has undergone strong positive selection in the past 8-5kyr in European populations (meaning that these groups are, in fact, adapted to digest milk).

This being said, I am not a nutritionist, so I can't evaluate how good for you or not the diet may be. It makes sense to me to cut out refined sugars and processed foods because these are very very recent (last 50 years or so). However, don't start a hardcore paleolithic diet thinking that you're living up to your evolutionary past, because you're not. 

There's debate on it to be honest. Can check out some of it in this thread:
http://www.performancemenu.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2712

I've just been backreading this thread a little, and I have one sid ecomment:  Charles, HPV has been linked to cervical cancer ins omething like 97% of cases.  To vaccinate for HPV, it requires that it be done before the age of 12, and the older a woman gets, the more difficult to vaccinate.  The reason for mandatory vaccinations for an STD is to prevent cancer decades later.

There's like 30+ variations of HPV. Only one or two of them cause cervical cancer. I know #18 is one of them IIRC but I think there might be another.

Well, just saying that having HPV is necessarily going to cause cancer depending on which strain you get.

[Andy Animus Tran]

There's a few strains..  The correlation is backwards, not forwards (HPV->cancer ratio is low.. cancer relating back to HPV rather high).  In any case, we took this outside.

[Terry McIntosh]

I want to raise an issue with the premise behind paleolithic diet.

I'm a grad student studying physical anthropology, focusing the origins of modern human diet, specifically looking at the plant foods that our ancestors and now-extinct relatives ate.  I look at the starch grains left behind on their tools and stuck in the plaque on their teeth, and my research is showing a trend that directly contradicts what the paleolithic diet presupposes.  Humans have been eating grains and beans for a long time (over 100kyr), at least an order of ten longer than agriculture has been around (since around 10kyr).  That's the direct evidence I've collected, but there is evidence from other researchers that cooking may have been around even longer (on the order of 500kyr-1mya).  So, the whole idea to cut out cooked grains and beans because we aren't evolved to eat them is BS.  More recently, there is strong evidence that the lactase gene (the one responsible for digesting milk) has undergone strong positive selection in the past 8-5kyr in European populations (meaning that these groups are, in fact, adapted to digest milk).

This being said, I am not a nutritionist, so I can't evaluate how good for you or not the diet may be. It makes sense to me to cut out refined sugars and processed foods because these are very very recent (last 50 years or so). However, don't start a hardcore paleolithic diet thinking that you're living up to your evolutionary past, because you're not. 

so the real question is, how many grains, beans, etc. can we eat with this in mind? is it cool if i get it all from a farmer and stay away from a super market? cause it seems like most of these foods have food labels, which usually equals processing.

[KC Parsons]

While this diet may not be perfect on an evolutionary scale, it's still a good diet for you nonetheless. Potatoes are bad because of starch, grains aren't great either (read the white/wheat bread dilemma thread.)

It also helps to keep in mind what you want to do, and eat accordingly.

Ex:
Tired? Eat carbohydrates (low GI, though.)
Just got done resistance training? Eat protein and carbohydrates (if you want that session to be useful.)

[Ryan Nicolai]

I eat a lot of straight organic(like, from Amish country) food, e.g.; eggs, vegetables, meats. My parents order their bulk meat from an organic butcher. The milk I drink is usually organic except for the soymilk my Mom has been buying the last couple of months. The whole soy thing is interesting, so is it ok to eat the "soy" in soy sauce... disregarding it's other problems.

[Kalagaraz]

Is this diet really that good? It's listed as a fad diet by several organizations, and studies on it haven't gone so well:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/05May/Pages/Cavemanfaddiet.aspx

6 out of 20 people dropped the diet (probably from tiredness)
Also, every participate had a horrible decrease in calcium levels.

I can see where people are coming from "Our ancestors lived for thousands of years on this stuff, so it must be healthy). I can see where that could be believable, but also look at the average life expectancy in the "paleolithic" days (33), whereas today it's 66, double off the "unhealthy" foods we eat.

Just wondering if anyone else has done actual research on this diet?

[Steven Low]

Is this diet really that good? It's listed as a fad diet by several organizations, and studies on it haven't gone so well:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/05May/Pages/Cavemanfaddiet.aspx

6 out of 20 people dropped the diet (probably from tiredness)
Also, every participate had a horrible decrease in calcium levels.

Of course the studies don't go well.

They don't give the participants enough time to have their metabolism adapt from a "mostly" sugar diet to one higher in fat and protein.

I can see where people are coming from "Our ancestors lived for thousands of years on this stuff, so it must be healthy). I can see where that could be believable, but also look at the average life expectancy in the "paleolithic" days (33), whereas today it's 66, double off the "unhealthy" foods we eat.

That's wrong. Most of them lived well into the 70s... it's the fact that their sanitation was terrible that all of the infants and kids who died under the age of 10 bring the life expectancy down into the 30s.

Just wondering if anyone else has done actual research on this diet?

See this site:
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/

[mospunk]

I must say that I've been extremely intrigued by this whole diet concept, and have been reading a lot on it lately. I'm still not totally convinced from the perspective of a serious athlete in terms of fuel intake, but I can definitely see the benefits of it in general, specifically for "average" people, or those who don't exercise much.  A few thoughts I had (don't take them as things I believe strongly, but rather making a point for arguments sake):

1.  Being so extreme in any diet seems like a bad idea.  It seems that everything we know about health changes regularly, evidenced by the many diets that have come and gone (Atkins?).  One small example that comes to mind is giving up on all salt.  Now, salt is on the whole not healthy for us, but there is one ingredient in modern salt that becomes quite important for us - iodine.  Most salt nowadays is iodized, which helps prevent goiters (ugly and painful), depression, fatigue, weakness, and weight gain.  There are plenty of foods that naturally contain iodine, but if one is trying to eat locally and sustainably (as I have set out to do), it may be difficult in certain regions.  Minnesota, for one, has relatively low iodine content in the soil, which is partly where foods get their iodine (as far as I understand it).  This isn't a huge issue, but one small example of taking out huge groups of food, simply because our ancestors 10000 years ago did not eat it.  I also find it hard to believe that there has been no genetic adaptation to at least some degree in 10000 years. 

2.  Steve Low referenced the performancemenu.com site for paleo stuff, and a few people there seemed to think that at least for them personally, they would have trouble gaining muscle mass with a strictly paleo diet, simply due to the difficulty of consuming enough calories (looks to me that you'd have to eat constantly).  Check it out:  http://www.performancemenu.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3489 

3.  On the defense for dropping grains and carbs, here's an interesting article that my friend posted on Facebook, who just graduated from PT school.  Read toward the bottom to find the culprit.
http://www.leadertelegram.com/story-news.asp?id=BJAKV393I4K 

Overall I think the idea is interesting, as I said, and I'm already changing things up in my diet to see how it feels.  I cut out the pasta and just had chicken with a slew of tasty veggies sauteed in olive oil and spices last night, and it was delicious.  I don't think I'll ever be able to give up the all-natural artisan bread that my baker friend makes, nor the delicious cheeses I love, or the breakfast cereal, but I will definitely work at cutting out the bulk of it, which I think will help a great deal.  For a guy who doesn't need to lose weight, I don't feel like this diet will be all that beneficial, except to reduce toxins. I don't eat a lot of the toxic things like potatoes and beans anyway.  Grains are the only thing I consume a lot of, and I'll work on that.   Cheers to all on their personal journeys!

[Steven Low]

1. Atkins isn't a "bad" diet. Ketogenic diets have their uses.

2. Yup, it's tough to get a lot of quality cals on Paleo... that's why if you're mass gaining usually you need to up cals in liquid form. Such as whole milk.

3.

Chapin has changed his diet to include more good cholesterol and less sugar and is taking cholesterol-controlling medicines and niacin, or vitamin B3.

Dietary cholesterol and all that stuff doesn't influence blood cholesterol.

Less sugar (and processed foods for that matter) are good. I don't really agree with the meds, but it is what it is.

------

Basically, take home point is to eat less sugar and processed foods. Paleo is just one way to go about it.