What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Paleo / Primal Blueprint type diets (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
Not sure the right way to ask this but I'll just throw it out.

You've probably seen the talk about the Paleo diets. It's essentially eating as humans did however long ago it was before we figured out how to farm grain. Mainly eating as a hunter / gatherer. For lack of a better term, eating like Grok the caveman did (Mark Sisson, author of Primal Blueprint's mascot) You're eating meats and vegetables and fruits and avoiding dairy and anything made from grain (which includes corn).

The basic idea is that our agricultural methods have evolved way more quickly than our bodies have. And that the ease of which we can obtain foods now is throwing our bodies all out of whack.

And the bigger premise is that we'd be more healthy if we ate like our ancestors did when we were hunter gatherers.

It makes sense in many ways. It's not hard to understand that a hunter gatherer wandering into a megamart grocery store is a collision of worlds.

But here's the question: Why do they assume that the "set point" of humans in the hunter / gatherer stage is the goal? Obviously, you can't compare things like life expectancy or even general health given the advantage of today's medical services. Now this likely has been addressed in the books / blogs and I've just overlooked it. But it seems like a fair question to ask - "why then"?

Do we have good reason to believe our hunter gatherer ancestors were healthier given their diet / lifestyle?

And, why that time period?

I mean, will people 500,000 years from now be looking at history saying they need to go on the 21st century diet and watch tons of TV and eat McDonalds?

Does that make sense?

J

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just another repackaging of Atkins.

Atkins: "Cut processed sugars and carbs out of your diet and change your insulin response blah blah"

Paleo: "Don't eat anything that cavemen didn't eat"

Both are for all intents in the execution of it identical. Both in their core cut out processed garbage.

Arguing over whether the date people started taking grains to a food mill is rather pointless.

 
While I do hunt in the wild, most of my gathering occurres at a grocery store so I don't see what the big deal is here.

Schlzm

 
Joe Bryant said:
Not sure the right way to ask this but I'll just throw it out.

You've probably seen the talk about the Paleo diets. It's essentially eating as humans did however long ago it was before we figured out how to farm grain. Mainly eating as a hunter / gatherer. For lack of a better term, eating like Grok the caveman did (Mark Sisson, author of Primal Blueprint's mascot) You're eating meats and vegetables and fruits and avoiding dairy and anything made from grain (which includes corn).

The basic idea is that our agricultural methods have evolved way more quickly than our bodies have. And that the ease of which we can obtain foods now is throwing our bodies all out of whack.

And the bigger premise is that we'd be more healthy if we ate like our ancestors did when we were hunter gatherers.

It makes sense in many ways. It's not hard to understand that a hunter gatherer wandering into a megamart grocery store is a collision of worlds.

But here's the question: Why do they assume that the "set point" of humans in the hunter / gatherer stage is the goal? Obviously, you can't compare things like life expectancy or even general health given the advantage of today's medical services. Now this likely has been addressed in the books / blogs and I've just overlooked it. But it seems like a fair question to ask - "why then"?

Do we have good reason to believe our hunter gatherer ancestors were healthier given their diet / lifestyle?

And, why that time period?

I mean, will people 500,000 years from now be looking at history saying they need to go on the 21st century diet and watch tons of TV and eat McDonalds?

Does that make sense?

J
Click to expand...
If humans adapated through evolution to the McD's diet, then we started eating something else even worse for us, this might be possible. The problem is, the McD's diet tends to kill you after your child-bearing years, so I'm not sure how natural selection would ever work to adapt the human species to this way of eating. If McD's killed people before they had a chance to have kids, and everyone ate McD's, natural selection would dictate that those that survived and bred were better suited to the McD's diet, and the genes that allowed survival would be passed down.
 
snitwitch said:
Joe Bryant said:
Not sure the right way to ask this but I'll just throw it out.

You've probably seen the talk about the Paleo diets. It's essentially eating as humans did however long ago it was before we figured out how to farm grain. Mainly eating as a hunter / gatherer. For lack of a better term, eating like Grok the caveman did (Mark Sisson, author of Primal Blueprint's mascot) You're eating meats and vegetables and fruits and avoiding dairy and anything made from grain (which includes corn).

The basic idea is that our agricultural methods have evolved way more quickly than our bodies have. And that the ease of which we can obtain foods now is throwing our bodies all out of whack.

And the bigger premise is that we'd be more healthy if we ate like our ancestors did when we were hunter gatherers.

It makes sense in many ways. It's not hard to understand that a hunter gatherer wandering into a megamart grocery store is a collision of worlds.

But here's the question: Why do they assume that the "set point" of humans in the hunter / gatherer stage is the goal? Obviously, you can't compare things like life expectancy or even general health given the advantage of today's medical services. Now this likely has been addressed in the books / blogs and I've just overlooked it. But it seems like a fair question to ask - "why then"?

Do we have good reason to believe our hunter gatherer ancestors were healthier given their diet / lifestyle?

And, why that time period?

I mean, will people 500,000 years from now be looking at history saying they need to go on the 21st century diet and watch tons of TV and eat McDonalds?

Does that make sense?

J
Click to expand...
If humans adapated through evolution to the McD's diet, then we started eating something else even worse for us, this might be possible. The problem is, the McD's diet tends to kill you after your child-bearing years, so I'm not sure how natural selection would ever work to adapt the human species to this way of eating. If McD's killed people before they had a chance to have kids, and everyone ate McD's, natural selection would dictate that those that survived and bred were better suited to the McD's diet, and the genes that allowed survival would be passed down.
Click to expand...
I hear you snit. But do we have reason to believe that the hunter / gatherer human was the goal to strive for?I guess that's really my question. Why pick that point?

J

 
culdeus said:
Just another repackaging of Atkins. Atkins: "Cut processed sugars and carbs out of your diet and change your insulin response blah blah"Paleo: "Don't eat anything that cavemen didn't eat"Both are for all intents in the execution of it identical. Both in their core cut out processed garbage. Arguing over whether the date people started taking grains to a food mill is rather pointless.
Click to expand...
There are significant differences among Primal/Paleo diets and Atkins (and even differences between the Primal/Paleo diets themselves). For instance, fruits are at the base of the "Primal Pyramid" along with vegetables. Fruits are restricted on Atkins, where the goal is simply to limit carbohydrate consumption. The Primal diet emphasizes receiving adequate carbohydrates from foods that otherwise high in vital micronutrients and anti-oxidants. Primal plans also don't view all restricted carbs as alike. Wheat presents more problems than sugar, which probably presents more problems than corn. This is due to our reactions to gluten and phytates and other substances in grains. Primal plans argue that whole-grain bread is paradoxically likely worse for you than white bread (and certainly worse for you than sourdough). It's not just about cutting out processed grains.
 
Joe Bryant said:
snitwitch said:
Joe Bryant said:
Not sure the right way to ask this but I'll just throw it out.

You've probably seen the talk about the Paleo diets. It's essentially eating as humans did however long ago it was before we figured out how to farm grain. Mainly eating as a hunter / gatherer. For lack of a better term, eating like Grok the caveman did (Mark Sisson, author of Primal Blueprint's mascot) You're eating meats and vegetables and fruits and avoiding dairy and anything made from grain (which includes corn).

The basic idea is that our agricultural methods have evolved way more quickly than our bodies have. And that the ease of which we can obtain foods now is throwing our bodies all out of whack.

And the bigger premise is that we'd be more healthy if we ate like our ancestors did when we were hunter gatherers.

It makes sense in many ways. It's not hard to understand that a hunter gatherer wandering into a megamart grocery store is a collision of worlds.

But here's the question: Why do they assume that the "set point" of humans in the hunter / gatherer stage is the goal? Obviously, you can't compare things like life expectancy or even general health given the advantage of today's medical services. Now this likely has been addressed in the books / blogs and I've just overlooked it. But it seems like a fair question to ask - "why then"?

Do we have good reason to believe our hunter gatherer ancestors were healthier given their diet / lifestyle?

And, why that time period?

I mean, will people 500,000 years from now be looking at history saying they need to go on the 21st century diet and watch tons of TV and eat McDonalds?

Does that make sense?

J
Click to expand...
If humans adapated through evolution to the McD's diet, then we started eating something else even worse for us, this might be possible. The problem is, the McD's diet tends to kill you after your child-bearing years, so I'm not sure how natural selection would ever work to adapt the human species to this way of eating. If McD's killed people before they had a chance to have kids, and everyone ate McD's, natural selection would dictate that those that survived and bred were better suited to the McD's diet, and the genes that allowed survival would be passed down.
Click to expand...
I hear you snit. But do we have reason to believe that the hunter / gatherer human was the goal to strive for?I guess that's really my question. Why pick that point?

J
Click to expand...
I think the physical requirements of the hunter/gatherers of past would be a better goal to strive for over the menu options in all honesty. Obviously no one should cramming most of the garbage being passed off as food these days down their throats, but I think eating reasonably healthy with a good physical foundation would provide better results overall compared to eating nothing but treebark and roadkill.Schlzm

 
Joe Bryant said:
I hear you snit. But do we have reason to believe that the hunter / gatherer human was the goal to strive for?I guess that's really my question. Why pick that point?J
Click to expand...
Because we have the hardware we've got. I don't think paleo diets "strive" for anything. They simply say that our bodies are ill-suited to eating certain foods. If we could "hack" our bodies to so that we could effectively eat cereal grains without other health problems, I'm sure the paleo advocates would be fine with that.
 
Seems like the thing to do would be to compare the remains of hunter gatherer societies from 15k years ago against agrarian societies 8k years ago (a few thousand years after the agricultural "revolution").

Which group lived longer...which was healthier...which was taller...which suffered from disease more...? The answer to that...I have no clue.

I think the hunter and gatherer diet does make sense...but is probably impractical. If a person just eliminated all pre-manufactured/processed food that would go a long way. Eat food in it's basic form. If you want bread...fine...bake a loaf yourself from scratch. Right off the bat you eliminate things like chips and crackers. If you've gotta have something and go to the effort to make it yourself from scratch you're fine.

 
I recently dropped 70 LBs on the diet (high carb, little meat) I was on but had recently plateaued and couldn't take the last 15-20 LBs off (yes, I was huge).I just switched to the Primal Lifestyle on Saturday and so far I feel like I have been eating like a pig. I have lost 1 LB in 4 days thus far with no negative signs. I read Marksdailyapple for about 3 days before I switched and everything he was saying made sense. I will say that I have felt more satisfied in the last 4 day than I did at anytime on the previous diet. I just have to keep pounding into my brain that fat is good. Also, I was running like a mad man and could feel the toll it was taking on my body. With the Primal blueprint fitness program, I will be much easier on myself which should produce better results.

 
PizzaDeliveryGuy said:
I recently dropped 70 LBs on the diet (high carb, little meat) I was on but had recently plateaued and couldn't take the last 15-20 LBs off (yes, I was huge).I just switched to the Primal Lifestyle on Saturday and so far I feel like I have been eating like a pig. I have lost 1 LB in 4 days thus far with no negative signs. I read Marksdailyapple for about 3 days before I switched and everything he was saying made sense. I will say that I have felt more satisfied in the last 4 day than I did at anytime on the previous diet. I just have to keep pounding into my brain that fat is good. Also, I was running like a mad man and could feel the toll it was taking on my body. With the Primal blueprint fitness program, I will be much easier on myself which should produce better results.
Click to expand...
Yes. I'd agree that a lot of Sisson's Primal Blueprint "feels" like it makes sense. Granted, that's not exactly a scientific way to choose a diet / lifestyle but it helps that it feels right.J
 
I've said this before, but I do think the emphasis on "Grok" and whatnot sometimes weakens the Primal Blueprint. Grok is a metaphor, and a story device to deliver information, but the studies and science have to make sense anyway. For instance, the "primal fitness" workout program supposes a lot about what Grok did or didn't do during the day. We can't know if that's right. We can know if the science shows that regular moderate to high intensity cardio promotes the release of cortisol and slows your basal metabolism. We can study that. We can study the effects of more regluar lighter cardio and less frequent intense cardio. We can study the relative benefits of strength training versus cardio (and this is a field where the science seems unambiguous).

We shouldn't let the overall hypothesis that we should eat more like how we evolved to eat prevent us from actually trying to study how we react to nutrients now. The specific should trump the general.

 
Joe Bryant said:
snitwitch said:
Joe Bryant said:
Not sure the right way to ask this but I'll just throw it out.

You've probably seen the talk about the Paleo diets. It's essentially eating as humans did however long ago it was before we figured out how to farm grain. Mainly eating as a hunter / gatherer. For lack of a better term, eating like Grok the caveman did (Mark Sisson, author of Primal Blueprint's mascot) You're eating meats and vegetables and fruits and avoiding dairy and anything made from grain (which includes corn).

The basic idea is that our agricultural methods have evolved way more quickly than our bodies have. And that the ease of which we can obtain foods now is throwing our bodies all out of whack.

And the bigger premise is that we'd be more healthy if we ate like our ancestors did when we were hunter gatherers.

It makes sense in many ways. It's not hard to understand that a hunter gatherer wandering into a megamart grocery store is a collision of worlds.

But here's the question: Why do they assume that the "set point" of humans in the hunter / gatherer stage is the goal? Obviously, you can't compare things like life expectancy or even general health given the advantage of today's medical services. Now this likely has been addressed in the books / blogs and I've just overlooked it. But it seems like a fair question to ask - "why then"?

Do we have good reason to believe our hunter gatherer ancestors were healthier given their diet / lifestyle?

And, why that time period?

I mean, will people 500,000 years from now be looking at history saying they need to go on the 21st century diet and watch tons of TV and eat McDonalds?

Does that make sense?

J
Click to expand...
If humans adapated through evolution to the McD's diet, then we started eating something else even worse for us, this might be possible. The problem is, the McD's diet tends to kill you after your child-bearing years, so I'm not sure how natural selection would ever work to adapt the human species to this way of eating. If McD's killed people before they had a chance to have kids, and everyone ate McD's, natural selection would dictate that those that survived and bred were better suited to the McD's diet, and the genes that allowed survival would be passed down.
Click to expand...
I hear you snit. But do we have reason to believe that the hunter / gatherer human was the goal to strive for?I guess that's really my question. Why pick that point?

J
Click to expand...
The most reasoned rationale I've heard is that when you find old skeletons, they are compartively healthy and balanced, and in the abscence of things like tooth past and floss, their teeth are in tact, and in a limited study to be sure, there doesn't seem to be much damage caused by food/consumables. Lifespans were shorter, infant health rates weren't strong, medicine didn't become what it has, greater natural danger from predators, less knowledge of weather makes one more succeptable to preparing for elements, but the annecdotal input I've heard indicates that coming from an eco system of food will be for lack of a better term, natural. There is not imbalance in the preparation and processing. I'm guessing that the paleo point is where processing started. Its all a bit of an illusion, we deal with factory farm animals, genetically manipulated produce, so there can only so much of an authentic connection. But its probably better than Ritz crackers and TastyCakes.
 
nice chart... paleo-vs-primal-vs-atkins

Hi Siff. Dr. Cordain has dedicated his life to that research and is a major proponent of the paleo diet (sort of the creator). According to him the diseases we all deal with, cancer, heart, diabetes, many others are The Diseases of Civilization. Hunter gatherers barely suffered from them. Those diseases were widespread within a handful of generations from the cultivation of wheat, the agricultural revolution. It gets complicated (and to me interesting), but eating clean, organic, natural, unprocessed foods (all grains are processed thus I do not eat them) has been a life saver for me. I'm from a generally obese family of great Italian cooks and bakers with a couple restaurants, and I used to thank god for my love of sports keeping me reasonably healthy and fit, but as I aged it became obvious I was following that fat diabetic metabolic syndrome path so I now thank god for a primal/paleo lifestyle. My family still freaks over me not EVER eating pasta but I have won many converts in the last year and we are all seeing good to great results.

Scooby, I don't think the differences are really that significant and Culdeus is right to lump them together as my chart above shows, BUT, I think Culdeus's negative tone is an error. A primal lifestyle isn't for everyone. It stretches data to fit the hypothesis way more than necessary. There's several paths to better health. This is a good one.

Joe, fruit and veggies are the base of Mark's pyramid, but further reading reveals a pretty strong denial of neolithic fruit. See we farmers have hybridized and selected for the sweetest possible fruits and the sugar levels are just too high for heavy consumption. The bulk of the Primal diet is green veggies. Mark says that over and over again. Fruits and nuts are okay, but in small amounts. Berries are best.

 
Also, there are a few cultures scattered worldwide whose diet has never evolved. These peoples appear to have a near-complete absence of "modern" diseases like hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, etc. This is the genesis of the Paleo way of thinking.

 
Someone should just list the good foods and the bad foods in here and we can be done with this for once and for all. ;)

 
scoobygang said:
I've said this before, but I do think the emphasis on "Grok" and whatnot sometimes weakens the Primal Blueprint. Grok is a metaphor, and a story device to deliver information, but the studies and science have to make sense anyway. For instance, the "primal fitness" workout program supposes a lot about what Grok did or didn't do during the day. We can't know if that's right. We can know if the science shows that regular moderate to high intensity cardio promotes the release of cortisol and slows your basal metabolism. We can study that. We can study the effects of more regluar lighter cardio and less frequent intense cardio. We can study the relative benefits of strength training versus cardio (and this is a field where the science seems unambiguous).We shouldn't let the overall hypothesis that we should eat more like how we evolved to eat prevent us from actually trying to study how we react to nutrients now. The specific should trump the general.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with this. It really doesn't matter when it was we lived like this (or even if we ever lived like this). I was just curious.J
 
'Joe Bryant said:
Do we have good reason to believe our hunter gatherer ancestors were healthier given their diet / lifestyle?
Click to expand...
There are both theoretical reasons and empirical reasons to believe that the "hunter-gatherer diet" (to the extent that there is any such thing) is good for us.Theoretical: Organisms are built by their environments through natural selection. Fish flourish in water but suffer on dry land because all of their ancestors lived in the water; so their ancestors who thrived in water passed on their genes, while their ancestors who did poorly in water did not. Genes for thriving in water therefore predominate the fish gene pool. Fish are built to live in the water, because the water constituted their ancestral environment.

In the same way, cows are built to eat grass, Koalas are built to eat eucalyptus leaves, and lions are built to eat gazelles. If a lion tried to live on a diet of eucalyptus leaves, or if a cow tried to live on a diet of gazelle meat, those animals would get sick and die. Lions are not adapted to eating grass. Grass-eating genes were not selected for in lions, because their ancestors did not eat grass.

Humans are no different from other animals in that regard. We're adapted to the environment that our ancestors lived in during our evolution — during the time that our bodies were being built. We're built to eat the stuff that our ancestors ate, just like lions are built to eat the stuff that their ancestors ate.

(Figuring out exactly what our ancestors ate, however, is some tricky business. But some things are certain: they didn't eat Twinkies, for example.)

Empirical: The agricultural revolution marked the transition from the hunger-gatherer lifestyle in the paleolithic era to the farming lifestyle in the neolithic era. The transition also marked a time when humans became less healthy.

We can tell from fossils that our hunter-gatherer ancestors were as tall or taller than modern Americans and Europeans, and that they were virtually free of cavities and bone malformations, both of which are signs of good nutrition. Hunter-gatherers that lived up into the 20th century so that we could study them directly were virtually free of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, acne, etc. (even though a significant fraction of them lived into their sixties). They also had excellent strength and endurance. Insofar as food can affect those things, it seems that their nutrition was good.

And, why that time period?
Click to expand...
We are very similar, genetically, to our ancestors of 120,000 years ago. The agricultural revolution happened a mere 10,000 years ago. The paleolithic era covers 99% of the time-frame when human evolution occurred. (What counts as "human" is a matter of arbitrary line-drawing; but by any reasonable standard, the last 10,000 years have constituted a very small portion of it.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While I'm sold on the lifestyle I do like to bust on them in their cultic forums. I got great mileage out of the Venus of Willendorf -- a paleolithic goddess -- if you believe the archeologists.

Here she is.

There is evidence that fat women were revered 25000 years ago in some parts. An oversupply of sumer fruits, nuts and the bounty of the sea was available to those more fortunate.

 
scoobygang said:
culdeus said:
Just another repackaging of Atkins. Atkins: "Cut processed sugars and carbs out of your diet and change your insulin response blah blah"Paleo: "Don't eat anything that cavemen didn't eat"Both are for all intents in the execution of it identical. Both in their core cut out processed garbage. Arguing over whether the date people started taking grains to a food mill is rather pointless.
Click to expand...
There are significant differences among Primal/Paleo diets and Atkins (and even differences between the Primal/Paleo diets themselves). For instance, fruits are at the base of the "Primal Pyramid" along with vegetables. Fruits are restricted on Atkins, where the goal is simply to limit carbohydrate consumption. The Primal diet emphasizes receiving adequate carbohydrates from foods that otherwise high in vital micronutrients and anti-oxidants. Primal plans also don't view all restricted carbs as alike. Wheat presents more problems than sugar, which probably presents more problems than corn. This is due to our reactions to gluten and phytates and other substances in grains. Primal plans argue that whole-grain bread is paradoxically likely worse for you than white bread (and certainly worse for you than sourdough). It's not just about cutting out processed grains.
Click to expand...
I thought stuff like Whole Wheat was supposed to be okay, and it was just flour that was a big issue. But you're saying that even Whole Wheat stuff is a problem? I'll be damned if I can't get pizza in some form...
 
'DrJ said:
I thought stuff like Whole Wheat was supposed to be okay, and it was just flour that was a big issue. But you're saying that even Whole Wheat stuff is a problem? I'll be damned if I can't get pizza in some form...
Click to expand...
The quick case against grains, from here:
Some plants, like blueberries or similar fruits, have evolved a strategy of “give a little to get a little.” Critters (us included) eat these fruits, then pass the seeds in a convenient, warm fertilized package that all but guarantees the next generation. Sewage systems aside, this is a reasonable trade off. The critter that eats the blueberries gets a little nutrition in exchange for spreading the blueberry seeds for subsequent generations of blueberries.

Other plants take a different approach and try to dissuade all predation by shrouding themselves in nasty substances that are either irritants or outright poisons. Consider poison oak or poison ivy. These plants have developed chemical warfare capabilities and use oils that have a tendency to work their way through the skin of animals that come in contact with the leaves. This oil sets off an alarm that irritates the immune system. Lymphocytes and other white blood cells attack the oil and in the process release pro-inflammatory chemicals that lead to a rash. Keep this idea in mind as we talk about grains, as it will help you to wrap your mind around what is happening when we eat this “staple” food.

If we compare grains to the strategies listed above, “give a little, get a little,” like the blueberry, or “bugger off,” like the poison oak, we see that grains are much more like poison oak. If a critter eats a grain, that’s it for the grain. That does not mean that the grain goes down without a fight! Grains are remarkably well equipped for chemical warfare.

(See the link for specifics.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DrJ said:
I thought stuff like Whole Wheat was supposed to be okay, and it was just flour that was a big issue. But you're saying that even Whole Wheat stuff is a problem? I'll be damned if I can't get pizza in some form...
Click to expand...
Sisson/Primal is a lifestyle that understands your weakness. Paleo does not. Primal suggests you cheat with up to 20% of your intake so you can stick with it long term. I do not eat pasta anymore because it was easy to eliminate. I still eat pizza and hamburgers, but not nearly as often and I'm not above wrapping my burger in lettuce (pretty common these days, but I indulge on the road or with company).
 
Maurile Tremblay said:
DrJ said:
I thought stuff like Whole Wheat was supposed to be okay, and it was just flour that was a big issue. But you're saying that even Whole Wheat stuff is a problem? I'll be damned if I can't get pizza in some form...
Click to expand...
The quick case against grains, from here:
Some plants, like blueberries or similar fruits, have evolved a strategy of “give a little to get a little.” Critters (us included) eat these fruits, then pass the seeds in a convenient, warm fertilized package that all but guarantees the next generation. Sewage systems aside, this is a reasonable trade off. The critter that eats the blueberries gets a little nutrition in exchange for spreading the blueberry seeds for subsequent generations of blueberries.

Other plants take a different approach and try to dissuade all predation by shrouding themselves in nasty substances that are either irritants or outright poisons. Consider poison oak or poison ivy. These plants have developed chemical warfare capabilities and use oils that have a tendency to work their way through the skin of animals that come in contact with the leaves. This oil sets off an alarm that irritates the immune system. Lymphocytes and other white blood cells attack the oil and in the process release pro-inflammatory chemicals that lead to a rash. Keep this idea in mind as we talk about grains, as it will help you to wrap your mind around what is happening when we eat this “staple” food.

If we compare grains to the strategies listed above, “give a little, get a little,” like the blueberry, or “bugger off,” like the poison oak, we see that grains are much more like poison oak. If a critter eats a grain, that’s it for the grain. That does not mean that the grain goes down without a fight! Grains are remarkably well equipped for chemical warfare.

(See the link for specifics.)
Click to expand...
Then I'm just waving the white flag. I'll shoot for healthier rather than actually "healthy". I'll introduce vegetables, at least the ones I can stomach. I'll cut out HFCS and sugars and stuff like that. But I'm not giving up grains, period, end of story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaos Commish said:
DrJ said:
I thought stuff like Whole Wheat was supposed to be okay, and it was just flour that was a big issue. But you're saying that even Whole Wheat stuff is a problem? I'll be damned if I can't get pizza in some form...
Click to expand...
Sisson/Primal is a lifestyle that understands your weakness. Paleo does not. Primal suggests you cheat with up to 20% of your intake so you can stick with it long term. I do not eat pasta anymore because it was easy to eliminate. I still eat pizza and hamburgers, but not nearly as often and I'm not above wrapping my burger in lettuce (pretty common these days, but I indulge on the road or with company).
Click to expand...
Awesome - I can live with that! Thanks!
 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Joe Bryant said:
Do we have good reason to believe our hunter gatherer ancestors were healthier given their diet / lifestyle?
Click to expand...
There are both theoretical reasons and empirical reasons to believe that the "hunter-gatherer diet" (to the extent that there is any such thing) is good for us.Theoretical: Organisms are built by their environments through natural selection. Fish flourish in water but suffer on dry land because all of their ancestors lived in the water; so their ancestors who thrived in water passed on their genes, while their ancestors who did poorly in water did not. Genes for thriving in water therefore predominate the fish gene pool. Fish are built to live in the water, because the water constituted their ancestral environment.

In the same way, cows are built to eat grass, Koalas are built to eat eucalyptus leaves, and lions are built to eat gazelles. If a lion tried live on a diet of eucalyptus leaves, or if a cow tried to live on a diet of gazelle meat, those animals would get sick and die. Lions are not adapted to eating grass. Grass-eating genes were not selected for in lions, because their ancestors did not eat grass.

Humans are no different from other animals in that regard. We're adapted to the environment that our ancestors lived in during our evolution — during the time that our bodies were being built. We're built to eat the stuff that our ancestors ate, just like lions are built to eat the stuff that their ancestors ate.

(Figuring out exactly what our ancestors ate, however, is some tricky business. But some things are certain: they didn't eat Twinkies, for example.)

Empirical: The agricultural revolution marked the transition from the hunger-gatherer lifestyle in the paleolithic era to the farming lifestyle in the neolithic era. The transition also marked a time when humans became less healthy.

We can tell from fossils that our hunter-gatherer ancestors were as tall or taller than modern Americans and Europeans, and that they were virtually free of cavities and bone malformations, both of which are signs of good nutrition. Hunter-gatherers that lived up into the 20th century so that we could study them directly were virtually free of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, acne, etc. (even though a significant fraction of them lived into their sixties). They also had excellent strength and endurance. Insofar as food can affect those things, it seems that their nutrition was good.

And, why that time period?
Click to expand...
We are very similar, genetically, to our ancestors of 120,000 years ago. The agricultural revolution happened a mere 10,000 years ago. The paleolithic era covers 99% of the time-frame when human evolution occurred. (What counts as "human" is a matter of arbitrary line-drawing; but by any reasonable standard, the last 10,000 years have constituted a very small portion of it.)
Click to expand...
Thanks Maurile. This is what I was looking for.J

 
DrJ said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
DrJ said:
I thought stuff like Whole Wheat was supposed to be okay, and it was just flour that was a big issue. But you're saying that even Whole Wheat stuff is a problem? I'll be damned if I can't get pizza in some form...
Click to expand...
The quick case against grains, from here:
Some plants, like blueberries or similar fruits, have evolved a strategy of “give a little to get a little.” Critters (us included) eat these fruits, then pass the seeds in a convenient, warm fertilized package that all but guarantees the next generation. Sewage systems aside, this is a reasonable trade off. The critter that eats the blueberries gets a little nutrition in exchange for spreading the blueberry seeds for subsequent generations of blueberries.

Other plants take a different approach and try to dissuade all predation by shrouding themselves in nasty substances that are either irritants or outright poisons. Consider poison oak or poison ivy. These plants have developed chemical warfare capabilities and use oils that have a tendency to work their way through the skin of animals that come in contact with the leaves. This oil sets off an alarm that irritates the immune system. Lymphocytes and other white blood cells attack the oil and in the process release pro-inflammatory chemicals that lead to a rash. Keep this idea in mind as we talk about grains, as it will help you to wrap your mind around what is happening when we eat this “staple” food.

If we compare grains to the strategies listed above, “give a little, get a little,” like the blueberry, or “bugger off,” like the poison oak, we see that grains are much more like poison oak. If a critter eats a grain, that’s it for the grain. That does not mean that the grain goes down without a fight! Grains are remarkably well equipped for chemical warfare.

(See the link for specifics.)
Click to expand...
Then I'm just waving the white flag. I'll shoot for healthier rather than actually "healthy". I'll introduce vegetables, at least the ones I can stomach. I'll cut out HFCS and sugars and stuff like that. But I'm not giving up grains, period, end of story.
Click to expand...
This, by the way, is very much what I was alluding to/describing on the "other" thread - demonize enough foods as strictly bad for you/completely off limits, you're going to run off people who would sincerely like to know more/eat healthier. That said, I'm looking forward to reading more about Sisson/Primal. Thanks ChaosCommish/Maurile for the info. I'm in the best shape of my life and heading into tri/cycling season, but my healthy eating has slowly deteriorated this winter.

 
Genedoc said:
DrJ said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
DrJ said:
I thought stuff like Whole Wheat was supposed to be okay, and it was just flour that was a big issue. But you're saying that even Whole Wheat stuff is a problem? I'll be damned if I can't get pizza in some form...
Click to expand...
The quick case against grains, from here:
Some plants, like blueberries or similar fruits, have evolved a strategy of “give a little to get a little.” Critters (us included) eat these fruits, then pass the seeds in a convenient, warm fertilized package that all but guarantees the next generation. Sewage systems aside, this is a reasonable trade off. The critter that eats the blueberries gets a little nutrition in exchange for spreading the blueberry seeds for subsequent generations of blueberries.

Other plants take a different approach and try to dissuade all predation by shrouding themselves in nasty substances that are either irritants or outright poisons. Consider poison oak or poison ivy. These plants have developed chemical warfare capabilities and use oils that have a tendency to work their way through the skin of animals that come in contact with the leaves. This oil sets off an alarm that irritates the immune system. Lymphocytes and other white blood cells attack the oil and in the process release pro-inflammatory chemicals that lead to a rash. Keep this idea in mind as we talk about grains, as it will help you to wrap your mind around what is happening when we eat this “staple” food.

If we compare grains to the strategies listed above, “give a little, get a little,” like the blueberry, or “bugger off,” like the poison oak, we see that grains are much more like poison oak. If a critter eats a grain, that’s it for the grain. That does not mean that the grain goes down without a fight! Grains are remarkably well equipped for chemical warfare.

(See the link for specifics.)
Click to expand...
Then I'm just waving the white flag. I'll shoot for healthier rather than actually "healthy". I'll introduce vegetables, at least the ones I can stomach. I'll cut out HFCS and sugars and stuff like that. But I'm not giving up grains, period, end of story.
Click to expand...
This, by the way, is very much what I was alluding to/describing on the "other" thread - demonize enough foods as strictly bad for you/completely off limits, you're going to run off people who would sincerely like to know more/eat healthier. That said, I'm looking forward to reading more about Sisson/Primal. Thanks ChaosCommish/Maurile for the info. I'm in the best shape of my life and heading into tri/cycling season, but my healthy eating has slowly deteriorated this winter.
Click to expand...
Sustaining a primal/paleo diet and doing full cardio is unsustainable. The macros are more in line with activities like cross fit.

 
DrJ said:
Then I'm just waving the white flag. I'll shoot for healthier rather than actually "healthy". I'll introduce vegetables, at least the ones I can stomach. I'll cut out HFCS and sugars and stuff like that. But I'm not giving up grains, period, end of story.
Click to expand...
Some people have real problems with grains; others seem pretty much okay with them. It seems to be an individual thing. In any case, a lot of the poisonous material in grains can be partially or completely neutralized by sprouting or fermenting them. That's why sourdough is better than white bread (as scoob mentioned).
 
culdeus said:
Genedoc said:
DrJ said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
DrJ said:
I thought stuff like Whole Wheat was supposed to be okay, and it was just flour that was a big issue. But you're saying that even Whole Wheat stuff is a problem? I'll be damned if I can't get pizza in some form...
Click to expand...
The quick case against grains, from here:
Some plants, like blueberries or similar fruits, have evolved a strategy of “give a little to get a little.” Critters (us included) eat these fruits, then pass the seeds in a convenient, warm fertilized package that all but guarantees the next generation. Sewage systems aside, this is a reasonable trade off. The critter that eats the blueberries gets a little nutrition in exchange for spreading the blueberry seeds for subsequent generations of blueberries.

Other plants take a different approach and try to dissuade all predation by shrouding themselves in nasty substances that are either irritants or outright poisons. Consider poison oak or poison ivy. These plants have developed chemical warfare capabilities and use oils that have a tendency to work their way through the skin of animals that come in contact with the leaves. This oil sets off an alarm that irritates the immune system. Lymphocytes and other white blood cells attack the oil and in the process release pro-inflammatory chemicals that lead to a rash. Keep this idea in mind as we talk about grains, as it will help you to wrap your mind around what is happening when we eat this “staple” food.

If we compare grains to the strategies listed above, “give a little, get a little,” like the blueberry, or “bugger off,” like the poison oak, we see that grains are much more like poison oak. If a critter eats a grain, that’s it for the grain. That does not mean that the grain goes down without a fight! Grains are remarkably well equipped for chemical warfare.

(See the link for specifics.)
Click to expand...
Then I'm just waving the white flag. I'll shoot for healthier rather than actually "healthy". I'll introduce vegetables, at least the ones I can stomach. I'll cut out HFCS and sugars and stuff like that. But I'm not giving up grains, period, end of story.
Click to expand...
This, by the way, is very much what I was alluding to/describing on the "other" thread - demonize enough foods as strictly bad for you/completely off limits, you're going to run off people who would sincerely like to know more/eat healthier. That said, I'm looking forward to reading more about Sisson/Primal. Thanks ChaosCommish/Maurile for the info. I'm in the best shape of my life and heading into tri/cycling season, but my healthy eating has slowly deteriorated this winter.
Click to expand...
Sustaining a primal/paleo diet and doing full cardio is unsustainable. The macros are more in line with activities like cross fit.
Click to expand...
What do you call "full cardio"?J

 
scoobygang said:
culdeus said:
Just another repackaging of Atkins. Atkins: "Cut processed sugars and carbs out of your diet and change your insulin response blah blah"Paleo: "Don't eat anything that cavemen didn't eat"Both are for all intents in the execution of it identical. Both in their core cut out processed garbage. Arguing over whether the date people started taking grains to a food mill is rather pointless.
Click to expand...
There are significant differences among Primal/Paleo diets and Atkins (and even differences between the Primal/Paleo diets themselves). For instance, fruits are at the base of the "Primal Pyramid" along with vegetables. Fruits are restricted on Atkins, where the goal is simply to limit carbohydrate consumption. The Primal diet emphasizes receiving adequate carbohydrates from foods that otherwise high in vital micronutrients and anti-oxidants. Primal plans also don't view all restricted carbs as alike. Wheat presents more problems than sugar, which probably presents more problems than corn. This is due to our reactions to gluten and phytates and other substances in grains. Primal plans argue that whole-grain bread is paradoxically likely worse for you than white bread (and certainly worse for you than sourdough). It's not just about cutting out processed grains.
Click to expand...
I understand this, but the main lifestyle change is the same.-Quit drinking sodas, eating white bread (or any bread), and for gods sake don't eat potatoesFutzing with the veg/fruit balance in the macro model is just juggling to account that to my knowledge one of these doesn't want you to take a multi-vitamin.
 
culdeus said:
Sustaining a primal/paleo diet and doing full cardio is unsustainable. The macros are more in line with activities like cross fit.
Click to expand...
Don't mistake primal/paleo for low-carb. From an anthropological standpoint, starchy tubers seem to be perfectly paleo, even if Loren Cordain doesn't approve of them. A paleo diet can arguably end up being fairly high-carb, similar to the Kitavans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
I mean, will people 500,000 years from now be looking at history saying they need to go on the 21st century diet and watch tons of TV and eat McDonalds?Does that make sense? J
Click to expand...
To your main point. No, they won't. They will probably be wondering why we grew grains to feed to animals to then feed ourselves and why it took so long for that system to collapse and cause a world wide famine. In 500,000 years a calorie will still be a calorie.
 
culdeus said:
scoobygang said:
culdeus said:
Just another repackaging of Atkins. Atkins: "Cut processed sugars and carbs out of your diet and change your insulin response blah blah"Paleo: "Don't eat anything that cavemen didn't eat"Both are for all intents in the execution of it identical. Both in their core cut out processed garbage. Arguing over whether the date people started taking grains to a food mill is rather pointless.
Click to expand...
There are significant differences among Primal/Paleo diets and Atkins (and even differences between the Primal/Paleo diets themselves). For instance, fruits are at the base of the "Primal Pyramid" along with vegetables. Fruits are restricted on Atkins, where the goal is simply to limit carbohydrate consumption. The Primal diet emphasizes receiving adequate carbohydrates from foods that otherwise high in vital micronutrients and anti-oxidants. Primal plans also don't view all restricted carbs as alike. Wheat presents more problems than sugar, which probably presents more problems than corn. This is due to our reactions to gluten and phytates and other substances in grains. Primal plans argue that whole-grain bread is paradoxically likely worse for you than white bread (and certainly worse for you than sourdough). It's not just about cutting out processed grains.
Click to expand...
I understand this, but the main lifestyle change is the same.-Quit drinking sodas, eating white bread (or any bread), and for gods sake don't eat potatoesFutzing with the veg/fruit balance in the macro model is just juggling to account that to my knowledge one of these doesn't want you to take a multi-vitamin.
Click to expand...
Primal does not hate potatoes and tubers. I've sat with Mark Sisson and ate baked potatoes. The serious carb restriction (under 50 grams per day) is for obese people in need of fast weight loss. If you are fit, Primal goes to 150 carbs per day, and recommends tubers... they are paleolithic.
 
culdeus said:
Genedoc said:
DrJ said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
DrJ said:
I thought stuff like Whole Wheat was supposed to be okay, and it was just flour that was a big issue. But you're saying that even Whole Wheat stuff is a problem? I'll be damned if I can't get pizza in some form...
Click to expand...
The quick case against grains, from here:
Some plants, like blueberries or similar fruits, have evolved a strategy of “give a little to get a little.” Critters (us included) eat these fruits, then pass the seeds in a convenient, warm fertilized package that all but guarantees the next generation. Sewage systems aside, this is a reasonable trade off. The critter that eats the blueberries gets a little nutrition in exchange for spreading the blueberry seeds for subsequent generations of blueberries.

Other plants take a different approach and try to dissuade all predation by shrouding themselves in nasty substances that are either irritants or outright poisons. Consider poison oak or poison ivy. These plants have developed chemical warfare capabilities and use oils that have a tendency to work their way through the skin of animals that come in contact with the leaves. This oil sets off an alarm that irritates the immune system. Lymphocytes and other white blood cells attack the oil and in the process release pro-inflammatory chemicals that lead to a rash. Keep this idea in mind as we talk about grains, as it will help you to wrap your mind around what is happening when we eat this “staple” food.

If we compare grains to the strategies listed above, “give a little, get a little,” like the blueberry, or “bugger off,” like the poison oak, we see that grains are much more like poison oak. If a critter eats a grain, that’s it for the grain. That does not mean that the grain goes down without a fight! Grains are remarkably well equipped for chemical warfare.

(See the link for specifics.)
Click to expand...
Then I'm just waving the white flag. I'll shoot for healthier rather than actually "healthy". I'll introduce vegetables, at least the ones I can stomach. I'll cut out HFCS and sugars and stuff like that. But I'm not giving up grains, period, end of story.
Click to expand...
This, by the way, is very much what I was alluding to/describing on the "other" thread - demonize enough foods as strictly bad for you/completely off limits, you're going to run off people who would sincerely like to know more/eat healthier. That said, I'm looking forward to reading more about Sisson/Primal. Thanks ChaosCommish/Maurile for the info. I'm in the best shape of my life and heading into tri/cycling season, but my healthy eating has slowly deteriorated this winter.
Click to expand...
Sustaining a primal/paleo diet and doing full cardio is unsustainable. The macros are more in line with activities like cross fit.
Click to expand...
See, and this fits in really well with what I want to do as well. I like weight training, I like riding my bike and playing basketball and stuff. I don't like doing full fledged cardio work, and I can never keep up those routines.My lunch today:

Gyros Sandwich - no sauce, just meat and pita.

Substituting the french fries with strawberries.

Substituting the soda with water.

If this is a healthy diet, I can be king of healthy. Outside of pizza.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dairy is like grains but moreso, btw. Some people very obviously cannot handle it. Others no problem. I've argued with the anti-dairy crowd and just concluded that I was further evolved than them because I have no issue with dairy other than the price of raw milk. Thanks Maurile.

 
DrJ said:
See, and this fits in really well with what I want to do as well. I like weight training, I like riding my bike and playing basketball and stuff. I don't like doing full fledged cardio work, and I can never keep up those routines.My lunch today:Gyros Sandwich - no sauce, just meat and pita.Substituting the french fries with strawberries.Substituting the soda with water.If this is a healthy diet, I can be king of healthy. Outside of pizza.
Click to expand...
Sisson would recommend keeping the sauce and skipping the pita. Particularly if it's whole grain.
 
I think the "caveman diet" is over analyzed. Those guys ate whatever they could get their hands on, because missing a meal meant possible death. You put a bag of fritos in front of Gork, and he's eating the hell out of it.

 
scoobygang said:
DrJ said:
See, and this fits in really well with what I want to do as well. I like weight training, I like riding my bike and playing basketball and stuff. I don't like doing full fledged cardio work, and I can never keep up those routines.My lunch today:Gyros Sandwich - no sauce, just meat and pita.Substituting the french fries with strawberries.Substituting the soda with water.If this is a healthy diet, I can be king of healthy. Outside of pizza.
Click to expand...
Sisson would recommend keeping the sauce and skipping the pita. Particularly if it's whole grain.
Click to expand...
I can probably do that too. I'm not attached to pita and would never eat a piece by itself. Still skipping the sauce though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rick James said:
I think the "caveman diet" is over analyzed. Those guys ate whatever they could get their hands on, because missing a meal meant possible death. You put a bag of fritos in front of Gork, and he's eating the hell out of it.
Click to expand...
Of course, but they had no fritos. I believe your point is spot on though, and that's why I call their attention to that fat Venus caveman worshipped. How'd she get fat with what was available? My guess is hazelnuts and figs. They were everywhere. I chuckle at the cultic paleo people who are re-enacting caveman in their own minds. It's dumb. But the research into the topic is more than compelling; it's convincing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks to all of you for helping me with this, too. This place seriously rocks. We'll see what my numbers read in 5 weeks when I go back to doc. :goodposting:

 
You should read the raw paleo forums for a good laugh. They thought that caveman didn't cook. Haha. Archeologists have dated cooking back 200,000 years and some pretty nifty hearth ovens back 75,000 years.

I'm going to go move around slowly for a couple hours.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
People get so worked up about calling their diet something and then restricting foods.

Do you want to get:

Weight Loss

Lean

Big

70s Big

Ironman

Then find the right macro ratios and work from there eating as little crap from a wrapper as possible. It's not really that hard and trying to do a one size fits all diet just doesn't work.

 
culdeus said:
People get so worked up about calling their diet something and then restricting foods.

Do you want to get:

Weight Loss

Lean

Big

70s Big

Ironman

Then find the right macro ratios and work from there eating as little crap from a wrapper as possible. It's not really that hard and trying to do a one size fits all diet just doesn't work.
Click to expand...
What are the right macro ratios for the goals listed?J

 
I've just been learning about this the last couple of weeks. I think my big issue is going to be with dairy. I love milk. I've always drank skim, but now I'm reading that supposedly that's the worst milk to drink? (I used to drink a gallon/day back in college.)

I've gone a couple weeks with no milk or other dairy before, and I haven't really noticed any difference in my body. If anything I actually felt a little worse.

And I'm seeing a lot of conflicting info on milk out there. So the primal method is to only drink whole or raw milk OCCASIONALLY if it doesn't bother your body?

 
culdeus said:
Joe Bryant said:
culdeus said:
Joe Bryant said:
What do you call "full cardio"?J
Click to expand...
20 hours a week at zone 4 or higher.
Click to expand...
What type of activities would you normally associate this amount of training with?And whats the average level of expertise for these people training at this volume?J
Click to expand...
Triathlon training/Cycling/UberRunnersBeginners to Cat5 in CyclingSprint to HIM in Tri4hour to BQ in UberRunners
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt that more than 1% of marathoners put in 20 hours per week of running, even at peak volume. I can't speak to tris, but I doubt they're that different.Edit: Seriously, an elite world-class marathoner might peak at 120 miles per week. They are not running those miles at 10:00/mile.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
What Are Current Bad Habits You Have That You'd Like To Give Up? (12/30)
Replies
10
Views
616
Jakey
J
Anarchy99
Berries and Personal Sanity
2
Replies
59
Views
1K
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
P
Puppy food question
Replies
16
Views
511
Shutout
Shutout

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top