The Myth of the Paleolithic Diet Exposed!
John Gohde
AUTHORS: Nestle M
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, New York University, NY 10012- 1172, USA. marion...@nyu.edu
SOURCE: Proc Nutr Soc 1999 May;58(2):211-8
[MEDLINE record in process]
CITATION IDS: PMID: 10466159 UI: 99395653
ABSTRACT: An ideal diet is one that promotes optimal health and longevity. Throughout history, human societies have developed varieties of dietary patterns based on available food plants and animals that successfully supported growth and reproduction. As economies changed from scarcity to abundance, principal diet-related diseases have shifted from nutrient deficiencies to chronic diseases related to dietary excesses. This shift has led to increasing scientific consensus that eating more plant foods but fewer animal foods would best promote health. This consensus is based on research relating dietary factors to chronic disease risks, and to observations of exceptionally low chronic disease rates among people consuming vegetarian, Mediterranean and Asian diets. One challenge to this consensus is the idea that palaeolithic man consumed more meat than currently recommended, and that this pattern is genetically determined. If such exists, a genetic basis for ideal proportions of plant or animal foods is difficult to determine; hominoid primates are largely vegetarian, current hunter-gatherer groups rely on foods that can be obtained most conveniently, and the archeological record is insufficient to determine whether plants or animals predominated. Most evidence suggests that a shift to largely plant-based diets would reduce chronic disease risks among industrialized and rapidly-industrializing populations. The accomplish this shift, it will be necessary to overcome market-place barriers and to develop new policies that will encourage greater consumption of fruits, vegetables and grains as a means to promote public health.
AUTHORS: Milton K
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley 94720-3140, USA. kmi...@socrates.berkeley.edu
SOURCE: Nutrition 1999 Jun;15(6):488-98
CITATION IDS: PMID: 10378206 UI: 99305969
ABSTRACT: The widespread prevalence of diet-related health problems, particularly in highly industrialized nations, suggests that many humans are not eating in a manner compatible with their biology. Anthropoids, including all great apes, take most of their diet from plants, and there is general consensus that humans come from a strongly herbivorous ancestry. Though gut proportions differ, overall gut anatomy and the pattern of digestive kinetics of extant apes and humans are very similar. Analysis of tropical forest leaves and fruits routinely consumed by wild primates shows that many of these foods are good sources of hexoses, cellulose, hemicellulose, pectic substances, vitamin C, minerals, essential fatty acids, and protein. In general, relative to body weight, the average wild monkey or ape appears to take in far higher levels of many essential nutrients each day than the average American and such nutrients (as well as other substances) are being consumed together in their natural chemical matrix. The recommendation that Americans consume more fresh fruits and vegetables in greater variety appears well supported by data on the diets of free- ranging monkeys and apes. Such data also suggest that greater attention to features of the diet and digestive physiology of non-human primates could direct attention to important areas for future research on features of human diet and health.
TITLE: Evolutionary aspects of omega-3 fatty acids in the food supply [In Process Citation]
AUTHORS: Simopoulos AP
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: The Center for Genetics, Nutrition and Health, Washington, DC 20009, USA. Lc...@bellatlantic.net
SOURCE: Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 1999 May-Jun;60(5-6):421-9
[MEDLINE record in process]
CITATION IDS: PMID: 10471132 UI: 99397733
ABSTRACT: Information from archaeological findings and studies from modern day hunter-gatherers suggest that the Paleolithic diet is the diet we evolved on and for which our genetic profile was programmed. The Paleolithic diet is characterized by lower fat and lower saturated fat intake than Western diets; a balanced intake of omega-6 and omega-3 essential fatty acids; small amounts of trans fatty acids, contributing less than 2% of dietary energy; more green leafy vegetables and fruits providing higher levels of vitamin E and vitamin C and other antioxidants than today's diet and higher amounts of calcium and potassium but lower sodium intake. Studies on the traditional Greek diet (diet of Crete) indicate an omega-6/omega-3 ratio of about 1/1. The importance of a balanced ratio of omega-6:omega-3, a lower saturated fatty acid and lower total fat intake (30-33%), along with higher intakes of fruits and vegetables leading to increases in vitamin E and C, was tested in the Lyon Heart study. The Lyon study, based on a modified diet of Crete, confirmed the importance of omega-3 fatty acids from marine and terrestrial sources, and vitamin E and vitamin C, in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, and cancer mortality.
AUTHORS: Garn SM
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 48109-0406, USA.
SOURCE: J Am Diet Assoc 1997 Jul;97(7 Suppl):S54-7
CITATION IDS: PMID: 9216569 UI: 97359653
ABSTRACT: Given the extraordinary dietary and geographic diversity of Pleistocene hominids, there is no single "Paleolithic diet" or average pre-Holocene fat intake. Even the Neanderthals initially were scavengers, possibly becoming seasonal hunters of large game at a later period. Fat intakes of greater than 20 g/day (11% of total caloric intake) developed after the domestication of mammals and then by selective breeding of genetically fatter animals in suitably temperate climates. By the late 1940s, the percent of fat in the diet rose to more than 40% in many Western countries (including France), decreasing somewhat to about 35% by the late 1980s in the United States, following reduced consumption of whole milk, fried meats, and other high-fat foods. Overall, fat reductions to less than 30% may be facilitated by no-fat or low-fat substitutes or texturizers or (perhaps more effectively) by increased intakes of fiber and calcium and greater reliance on fats that are poorly absorbed because of their stearate content.
TITLE: [Dietary habits and the state of the human oral cavity in the prehistoric age]
AUTHORS: Kee CD
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Catholic University Medical College.
SOURCE: Taehan Chikkwa Uisa Hyophoe Chi 1990 Jun;28(6):555-8
CITATION IDS: PMID: 2130134 UI: 92013581
ABSTRACT: This is an age-by-age summation of literature on over 100 sites (of more than 250 excavated prehistoric ruins on the Korean Peninsula: about 160 places in South Korea--Paleolithic Age 15, Neolithic Age 21, Bronze Age 90 and Iron Age 35--and about 90 places in North Korea) which produced dietary-habit-related devices such as hunting tools, fishing instruments, farming equipments, tools of daily life, and human bones and teeth. 1) Various dietary-habit-related Old Stone-Age tools, instruments and other items were found. Among them were stone axes, stone hand axes, fish spears and hooks made of bone or horn, stone blades, stone scrapers and stone drills believed to have been used in daily life, and charcoal and sites of furnaces used for cooking. Furthermore, it was found that there were severe dental abrasions and dental caries among the inhabitants of the Korean Peninsula in the Old Stone Age. 2) Some evidences were found which lead us to believe that hunting was practiced with stone arrowheads in the New Stone Age. Stone net sinkers, which is the evidence of the use of fish nets, were also found. In addition, farming stone tools and charred cereals, both of which date back to the latter part of this period, were unearthed. Millstones, which began to be used in this age, and livestock bones were found. Where these items were discovered, 23 maxillae and mandibles with teeth and a total of 231 separate teeth of Neolithic period human beings were reported. However, there are no records indicating dental caries, but some records describe severe abrasion.
AUTHORS: Haenel H
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Central Institute of Nutrition in Potsdam-Rehbrucke, Academy of Sciences of the GDR.
SOURCE: Nahrung 1989;33(9):867-87
CITATION IDS: PMID: 2697806 UI: 90190808
ABSTRACT: The evolution of man is connected with a life-style of hunting and gathering, and with the development and use of tools. The success of tools promoted the evolution of brain, thinking and skills. The food sources--animal and plant--remained the same during the whole of evolution. But the proportions of foods, preferences, preparations and the attainability changed. Evolution was a process continuously based on omnivorous nutrition. Compared to modern nutrition, paleolithic nutrition is richer in animal protein, vitamins, calcium, potassium and fibre, and poorer in fat and sodium. Saccharose, lactose and alcohol play no roles. The quality of the fat is marked by a high proportion of polyunsaturated fatty acids. This shift from a paleolithic diet to a modern diet caused nutritional risks, partly responsible for the dramatic increase in modern chronic diseases of heart, circulation and so on. Man's metabolism works in a stable genetic frame, derived during phylogenesis. We have to adapt our nutritional behaviour to its tolerances or we may succumb to disease and premature death. While our paleolithic metabolism is overdone with modern nutrition, our psychological heritages press in the direction of overdoing.
John Gohde, Health Nag
http://www.quackwatch.com/
"Quackery has existed since the first knave met the first fool."
--Voltaire
supplements should take a strong stand against Nutrition Quackery,
Food Faddism, and Nutritional Supplements Quackery anywhere
they see it. If you don't, no one will take your interests seriously.
basis in published scientific research.
Martin E. Lewitt
Bryan Mealy <bme...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>In article <7slhb8$aih$5...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>bb <bb...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Beans, grains and
>>> potatoes are excluded- these are Neolithic foods that only gained
>>popularity
>>> 10-20,000 years ago when farming started. They are also the main source of
>>> plant food toxins in the diet (ref: Toxic Constituents of Plant Food
>>> Substances, Irvin Liener, 2nd ed 1980). These foods are full of protease
>>> inhibitors, haemagglutins etc which is why they are inedible raw (fact).
>>> causation of disease.
>>
>>The biggest myth about the Paleolithic Diet is the notion that Grains are
>>bad for you.
>>
>
>Just a few comments here. Could it have been that switching to farming
>was bad for the digestion part but good in so many other ways that the
>average lifespan was increased?
No, farming was good at supporting far more people on the same amount
of land and the productivity was such that it enabled civilations to
developed, however, lifespan decreased due to malnutrition, famines
and communicable disease. Pre-agricultural life span was not exceeded
until the advent of modern public health measures late in the last
century.
-- Martin
--
Personal, not work info: Martin E. Lewitt My opinions are
Domain: lew...@swcp.com P.O. Box 729 my own, not my
Hm phone: (505) 281-3248 Sandia Park, NM 87047-0729 employer's.
Bryan Mealy
John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>bb <bb...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
>> Beans, grains and
>> potatoes are excluded- these are Neolithic foods that only gained
>popularity
>> 10-20,000 years ago when farming started. They are also the main source of
>> plant food toxins in the diet (ref: Toxic Constituents of Plant Food
>> Substances, Irvin Liener, 2nd ed 1980). These foods are full of protease
>> inhibitors, haemagglutins etc which is why they are inedible raw (fact).
>> causation of disease.
>
>The biggest myth about the Paleolithic Diet is the notion that Grains are
>bad for you.
>
Just a few comments here. Could it have been that switching to farming
was bad for the digestion part but good in so many other ways that the
average lifespan was increased? In this day and age, if I eat just
the average recommened diet, I'll probably live to meet the average
lifespan. But, since I have the wherewithall to fine tune my diet,
why not remove the things that my body disagrees with? Afterall, I've
for the moment transcended the survival thing and I'm currently
working on the good-health thing. Does it really need to be so black and
white?
Also, could "grains" be too broad of a term? Would it be better to
break it down to glutenous and non-glutenous grains?
-bryan
>Today, all humans by virtue of the fact that they are still here can handle
>Grains. Those that can not simply die off by the process of natural
>selection. 9,500 years divided by 50 equals 190 generations of humans for
>mother nature to do its work of natural selection. The dinosaurs
>disappeared off this planet literally overnight! It don't take long for
>Mother Nature to kill off the unfit.
>
Don Wiss
>One late-onset disease that Grains help prevent is cancer.
Huh? What I find are things like this:
Franceschi S, et.al; "Intake of macronutrients and risk of breast cancer"
Lancet 1996;347(9012):1351-6
This study was done in the Italian population which having a low awareness
of diet and cancer issues there is less scope for recall bias. They found
the risk of breast cancer decreased with increasing total fat intake
whereas the risk increased with increasing intake of available
carbohydrates.
And I highly encourage you to read this article:
Cordain L, Cereal Grains: Humanity's Double Edged Sword. World Review of
Nutrition & Dietetics, 1999;84:19-73
More on the book can be found at this site:
http://www.karger.ch/bookseries/wrund/wrund084.htm
Then try this article:
Lutz, W.J., "The Colonisation of Europe and Our Western Diseases", Medical
Hypotheses, Vol. 45, pages 115-120, 1995
Dr. Lutz, in the face of epidemiological studies that failed to support the
current belief that fat intake was at the root of coronary disease and
cancer, has done his own explorations of epidemiological data. His findings
show a clear, inverse relationship between these civilisatory diseases and
the length of time the people of a given region of Europe have had to adapt
to the high carbohydrate diet associated with the cultivation of cereal
grains that was begun in the Near East, and spread very slowly through
Europe.
Lutz doesn't get into cancer, but cancer and grains isn't new. In
Vilhjalmur Stefansson's book _Cancer Disease of Civilization_ 1960; Hill
and Wang, New York, NY.
it points out that Stanislaw Tanchou "....gave the first formula for
predicting cancer risk. It was based on grain consumption and was found to
accurately calculate cancer rates in major European cities. The more grain
consumed, the greater the rate of cancer." Tanchou's paper was delivered to
the Paris Medical Society in 1843. He also postulated that cancer would
likewise never be found in hunter-gatherer populations. This began a search
among the populations of hunter-gatherers known to missionary doctors and
explorers. This search continued until WWII when the last wild humans were
"civilized" in the Arctic and Australia. No cases of cancer were ever found
within these populations, although after they adopted the diet of
civilization, it became common.
Cancer, of course, is just one of the many diseases of civilization that
now plague us. Bruce Aimes of U.C. Berkeley published a series of articles
on cancer causation in the journal Science (#236,238,240) one of which
(in#238,Dec 18,1987) is titled "Paleolithic Diet, Evolution and
Carcinogens".
Anyway, that's enough for you to get started on.
Don (donwiss at panix com).
Doc Wonmug
>Tanchou's paper was delivered to
>the Paris Medical Society in 1843. He also postulated that cancer would
>likewise never be found in hunter-gatherer populations. This began a search
>among the populations of hunter-gatherers known to missionary doctors and
>explorers. This search continued until WWII when the last wild humans were
>"civilized" in the Arctic and Australia. No cases of cancer were ever found
>within these populations, although after they adopted the diet of
>civilization, it became common.
Without wishing to defend Mr. Gohde, I still have a couple of
questions.
(1) How can we be so sure the cancer in civilized populations is
caused by grain, and not by any of the other changes that took place
during the transition to civilization?
(2) How was it possible to check for the presence or absence of a
disease among people who don't know what it is and can't recognize
it?
(3) What was the longevity of these cancer-free peoples, and how did
they die?
--
Doc Wonmug, Tokyo
http://wonmug.com
Ben Balzer
-----> Don Wiss wrote, in part,
>
> >Tanchou's paper was delivered to
> >the Paris Medical Society in 1843. He also postulated that cancer would
> >likewise never be found in hunter-gatherer populations. This began a
search
> >among the populations of hunter-gatherers known to missionary doctors and
> >explorers. This search continued until WWII when the last wild humans
were
> >"civilized" in the Arctic and Australia. No cases of cancer were ever
found
> >within these populations, although after they adopted the diet of
> >civilization, it became common.
>
> Without wishing to defend Mr. Gohde, I still have a couple of
> questions.
>
> (1) How can we be so sure the cancer in civilized populations is
> caused by grain, and not by any of the other changes that took place
> during the transition to civilization?
When you change from a standard diet to a paleolithic type diet (mine is a
supermarket based paleolithic diet), you trade in grains cereals dairy and
pasta and increase your intake of fruit and vegetables. There is a big
increase in Vitamins, antioxidants, minerals. This provides a rational basis
for reduction in cancer and heart disease. Plant food toxins do affect
cellular immunity (Cordain L, Cereal Grains: Humanity's Double Edged Sword.
World Review of Nutrition & Dietetics, 1999;84:19-73).
http://www.karger.ch/bookseries/wrund/wrund084.htm
Cooking of meat has been well described to produce carcinogens, as you know.
> (2) How was it possible to check for the presence or absence of a
> disease among people who don't know what it is and can't recognize
> it?
The Kitava study http://www.panix.com/~paleodiet/lindeberg/ (referenced on
http://www.panix.com/~paleodiet/) has some good info on this. Lindberg et al
spent a couple of years on the island. They weren't wild like the
populations Don Wiss refers to (eg they smoke), but had Hunter Gatherer
ways.
>
> (3) What was the longevity of these cancer-free peoples, and how did
> they die?
I don't know
> --
Ben Balzer
Ben Balzer
> Just a few comments here. Could it have been that switching to farming
> was bad for the digestion part but good in so many other ways that the
> average lifespan was increased? In this day and age, if I eat just
> the average recommened diet, I'll probably live to meet the average
> lifespan. But, since I have the wherewithall to fine tune my diet,
> why not remove the things that my body disagrees with? Afterall, I've
> for the moment transcended the survival thing and I'm currently
> working on the good-health thing. Does it really need to be so black and
> white?
>
storage, their predictability, their short maturity cycle (from planting to
harvest). These advantages far outweighed their disadvantages for early man-
but are no longer reason enough to continue to eat them by themselves. Above
all, their ability to store without spoilage without refrigeration is hard
to beat. This stability is due to protease inhibitors etc that make them
indigestible without cooking. The same ptotease inhibitors etc that are
implicated in disease. (Cordain L, Cereal Grains: Humanity's Double Edged
Sword. World Review of Nutrition & Dietetics, 1999;84:19-73 More on the book
can be found at this site:
get it.
> Also, could "grains" be too broad of a term? Would it be better to
> break it down to glutenous and non-glutenous grains?
All grains contain protease inhibitors, haemagglutins etc. Rice seems to
have a fairly low level on reading Liener's book. Glutens are a problem too.
At the end of the day, primtive man didn't eat grains. I peronally think
it's a phylogenic proterty of seeds to contain these things to act as a
natural preservative and also pesticide etc.
Primitive man did eat, so there must be a paleolithic diet!!
>
> -bryan
>
>
Ben Balzer
David Lloyd-Jones
Martin E. Lewitt <lew...@swcp.com> wrote
> No, farming was good at supporting far more people on the same amount
> of land and the productivity was such that it enabled civilations to
> developed, however, lifespan decreased due to malnutrition, famines
> and communicable disease. Pre-agricultural life span was not exceeded
> until the advent of modern public health measures late in the last
> century.
>
Wrong way round. Civilization, i.e. setllement in "cities," comes first.
Agriculture follows.
Think hanging gardens of Babylon: the plants grown on the terraces of the
buildings of the trading settlement. The trading village of Jericho exists
at a level below the farming village of Jericho, which means it existed
first.
Today, as then, cities are intensively gardened. Tokyo and Manila are both
about 1/3 farmland by area. Manhattan Island has thousands of farms, mainly
in marijuana, cactuses, bean and other sprouts, and flowers, all high value
crops.
Tool manufacturing goes back at least 250,000 years -- which is as you would
expect: some people are better at the finicky work of using guts to tie
rocks onto handles; other people are more likely to have the bravado to walk
up to the hairy mammoth and whup it between the eyebrows with said hammer.
Naturally the two would trade hammers for meat. This exchange's economics
is probably what made the forebrain useful to survival, and thus drove the
evolution of the human brain pan from 350 cc a million years ago to 1350 cc
today.
The manufacture of beaded jewellery -- often a trading currency -- goes back
at least 60,000 years, the age of beaded necklaces excavated in the
Aurignace region of France.
Once you have trade, then you get settlements. Once you have settlements,
then you get warehouses of seed, and people who can identify the ones worth
growing. You get keepers of the meat, people who identify the docile
animals, and kill them last, then keep the pregnant ones. This leads to
domestication and animal husbandry.
Once you have animal husbandry, then you get division of labor, herding, and
then mobile villages following the grass: nomads. Villages first, nomads, or
mobile villages, a later specialized form.
The idea that agriculture comes first is Tory propaganda, the yawp of the
farm lobby. Toffler's Three Waves theory is just reworked Marxism. None of
it adds up: How much time does a hunter have to domesticate the angry boar
into the household pig?
And for a coda: information comes before trade, not last in the revolutions.
The Information Revolution was the First Wave, back in the millions of years
ago.
-dlj.
John Gohde
> Sword. World Review of Nutrition & Dietetics, 1999;84:19-73 More on the
> book can be found at this site:
> http://www.karger.ch/bookseries/wrund/wrund084.htm)
TITLE: Cereal grains: humanity's double-edged sword [In Process Citation]
AUTHORS: Cordain L
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Exercise and Sport Science, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, USA.
SOURCE: World Rev Nutr Diet 1999;84:19-73; No abstract available.
[MEDLINE record in process]
CITATION IDS: PMID: 10489816 UI: 99419662
First of all this published paper does not contain a public abstract. I
am not very impressed with stuff of this nature. However, a physician did
email a copy of the abstract and actual paper to me. So, I will give my
initial impression of the abstract today.
The web site noted above is clearly trying to sell a book called the
Evolutionary Aspects of Nutrition and Health: Diet, Exercise, Genetics and
Chronic Disease. Headlines sell books, and thus the information at the web
site is highly suspect. Further the web site clearly states: "When Homo
erectus emerged 1.7 million years ago, humans existed as non-cereal-eating
hunter-gatherers. It is on this basis that, according to the hypothesis of
the 'carnivore connection', an insulin-resistant genotype evolved to provide
survival and reproductive advantages to populations adapted to a high meat,
low plant food (low carbohydrate) nutritional environment." The notion
that the first cave ate mostly meat is clearly not supported by the
evidence. In my orignial post, I posted serveral citations indicating that
early man did not eat a lot of meat. Furthermore, supporters of the
paleolithic diet overwhelmingly backed up my position.
The actual abstract reads like a review of evidence. So even though it was
published, there is no indication that this paper documents the results of a
research study. Therefore, NO STUDY = NO RESULTS = NO CONCLUSIONS = VERY
LITTLE VALUE.
The abstract refers to clinical, epidemiological and anthropological
evidence. Again there is no indication of an scientific research study ever
being done where X number of people were feed X diet which resulted in X
conditions and X conclusions. Hence, again there is very little initial
indication of any real value to this citation.
The abstract also clearly states: "when they are consumed in excessive
quantity". What does that mean? Anything when taken to the extreme
produces negative results. That has always been my position. So, once
again perhaps 7 servings a day of grains are okay, according to this paper,
but 8 or more servings a day produce negative results? Or is it more like
16 servings a day are needed to produce the claimed negative results?
The abstract also mentions a new concept called "anti-nutrients".
Who else is talking about "anti-nutrients". Sounds a lot like the concept
that some foods cause a weight lost because it takes more energy to digest
them than these so called foods provide. "Anti-nutrients " looks like a way
of getting people to buy his book.
The actual paper is 84 pages long! I have not had time to skim over it,
yet.
Ben Balzer
John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> The web site noted above is clearly trying to sell a book
Agreed, it is the publisher's website. It is a very expensive book really
more suitable for libraries (no Australian libraries have it yet)
called the
> Evolutionary Aspects of Nutrition and Health: Diet, Exercise, Genetics
and
> Chronic Disease. Headlines sell books, and thus the information at the
web
> site is highly suspect. Further the web site clearly states: "When Homo
> erectus emerged 1.7 million years ago, humans existed as non-cereal-eating
> hunter-gatherers. It is on this basis that, according to the hypothesis of
> the 'carnivore connection', an insulin-resistant genotype evolved to
provide
> survival and reproductive advantages to populations adapted to a high
meat,
> low plant food (low carbohydrate) nutritional environment." The notion
> that the first cave ate mostly meat is clearly not supported by the
> evidence. In my original post, I posted serveral citations indicating
that
> early man did not eat a lot of meat. Furthermore, supporters of the
> paleolithic diet overwhelmingly backed up my position.
Please clarify your position for me. The title of the post was inflammatory-
I don't know what you regard as a myth- ie
Interpretation 1- those paleolithic diet people pushing high meat diets are
probably wrong- agreed.
Interpretation 2- Paleolithic diets are all bunkum- vehemently disagree
>
> The actual abstract reads like a review of evidence. So even though it
was
> published, there is no indication that this paper documents the results of
a
> research study. Therefore, NO STUDY = NO RESULTS = NO CONCLUSIONS = VERY
> LITTLE VALUE.
It is a review- the most comprehensive one I've found.
You may prefer this paper:
Eaton SB, Eaton SB III, Konner MJ Paleolithic Nutrition Revisited: A 12
Year Retrospective on its Nature and Implications. European J. Clinical
Nutrition (1997)61,207-216.
>
> The abstract refers to clinical, epidemiological and anthropological
> evidence. Again there is no indication of an scientific research study
ever
> being done where X number of people were feed X diet which resulted in X
> conditions and X conclusions. Hence, again there is very little initial
> indication of any real value to this citation.
Yes, I'd love to see clinical intervention data on Western humans- rather
than observational studies on "primitive" peoples. IMHO there is a real lack
of clinical nutritional research of all types. Too much research is drug
company driven. Thank goodness for the NIH, etc, etc.. I'm sure you're more
familiar with these arguments than I am. I will attempt to get any such
data, and will forward them if I find them, but I feel there will be very
little.
Animal data is present-
Liener's text repeatedly refers to the effects of plant food toxins on
animals.
Agricultural science is full of feeding trials (I have a contact but she
hasn't given me the references yet, and I don't have the inclination to
source it myself when my contact has expertise). Grains are used as feed
supplements in monogastric animals (pigs) and digastric animals (cattle)-
and cause rapid weight and fat gain, and cause an increase in the fat
content of lean meat.
Ian Billinghurst's book "Give your Dog a Bone" describes clearly how grain
based foods cause disease in dogs- caries, obesity, diabetes, arthritis.
>
> The abstract also clearly states: "when they are consumed in excessive
> quantity". What does that mean? Anything when taken to the extreme
> produces negative results. That has always been my position. So, once
> again perhaps 7 servings a day of grains are okay, according to this
paper,
> but 8 or more servings a day produce negative results? Or is it more like
> 16 servings a day are needed to produce the claimed negative results?
I think 1 or 2 serves a day would be enough to have effects in some people
but that's just a guess.
>
> The abstract also mentions a new concept called "anti-nutrients".
>
> Who else is talking about "anti-nutrients". Sounds a lot like the concept
> that some foods cause a weight lost because it takes more energy to digest
> them than these so called foods provide. "Anti-nutrients " looks like a
way
> of getting people to buy his book.
I think anti-nutrients is a fairly old concept. Perhaps it's a new name for
the old concept of food toxins. After all, many foods are inedible raw
(especially non-paleolithic foods)- this is because they contain toxins (or
antinutrients if you prefer). There is a range of problems that the term
anti-nutrient covers better than the term toxin- from phytates binding
nutrients and preventing absorption, to protease inhibitors binding trypsin/
chymotrypsin etc, to haemagglutins (lectins) having direct cytotoxic effects
etc. Liener covers these well, and his book was written in 1980 and gives
references going back decades- I thoroughly recommend it. Irvin Liener is
still a Professor of
Agricultural Science, and I think he edits one of their peer journals (I
did a search on him, but didn't keep it- as I was only trying to find out if
a more recent edition had been published)
Ben Balzer, family physician and born-again-cynic
"The ideal diet for any animal is that which it eats in the wild. Humans are
no exception"- myself
John Gohde
> > (Cordain L, Cereal Grains: Humanity's Double Edged
> > Sword. World Review of Nutrition & Dietetics, 1999;84:19-73 More on the
> > book can be found at this site:
> > http://www.karger.ch/bookseries/wrund/wrund084.htm)
>
> TITLE: Cereal grains: humanity's double-edged sword [In Process Citation]
> AUTHORS: Cordain L
> AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Exercise and Sport Science, Colorado
> State University, Fort Collins, USA.
> SOURCE: World Rev Nutr Diet 1999;84:19-73; No abstract available.
> CITATION IDS: PMID: 10489816 UI: 99419662
I have read through the entire paper.
I find nothing in it that would motivate me to stop eating grains
completely. I refer you to my recent post entitled: Your Diet contains
Landmines! where I pointed out that ALL foods contain negatives.
Individuals with Celiac disease and other genetic conditions maybe
exceptions. I, also, find nothing in the paper that would cause me to
reduce my consumption of grains. However, Vegetarians who get most of their
protein from grains might need to take a closer look. Also, it supports my
general belief in the beneficial effects of taking nutritional supplements
in general. Further, the author has confirmed my position that if you eat a
lot of grains you need to make sure that you age getting adequate amounts of
Omega-3 EFA's in your diet (or from supplements).
The author himself said it best in his conclusion when he wrote:
"Cereal grains obviously can be included in moderate amounts in the diets of
most people without any noticeable, deleterious health effects, and herein
lies their strength. When combined with a variety of both animal and plant
based foods, they provide a cheap and plentiful caloric source, capable of
sustaining and promoting human life."
The only real problem with grains happens when they are consumed excessively
in your diet. Consuming Grains exclusively or from 100% to 80% of your
caloric intake will result in certain vitamin deficiencies. There is
nothing new here, as consuming anything exclusively will cause certain
vitamin deficiencies. These types of problems show up mostly in third world
countries where they only eat rice and other types of grains. As my diet
does not consist of 50% bread, I am not particularly worried about consuming
too much wheat.
He has brought up some interesting things about antinutrients which I will
further investigate. But, interestingly enough the modern process of
removing the bran from processed grains actually has the health benefit of
removing a lot of the antinutrients. Hence, I am now less concern about
looking for bread that still has the bran in it.
I think that what constitutes a longevity diet is still up for debate. It
may consist of more grains than vegetables, or it may consist of more
vegetables than grains. But, I would certainly still include grains in a
longevity diet. It is entirely possible that certain people in their zeal
to eat a low fat diet are in fact consuming to many grains. But, again I
would like to point out I have always recommended a Balanced and Varied diet
from as many different food choices as possible.
Ben Balzer
in a world where people need choices. So, if your diet doesn't quite suit
you, you can try doing paleo. It is a valid diet. people did live on it for
2 million years, only taking on grains some 10-20,000 years ago. Yes, I do
eat grains once each week or two- but they're no longer the base of my food
pyramid- they're more like the top or second row.
Just for fun (remember that word), try using a diet computer program like
Dietpower(tm) and see what happens to your micronutrient intake when you
substitute all your grain and dairy foods for an equivalent caloric amount
of fruit and vegetables. The vitamin intake soars.
Ben Balzer
"The ideal diet for any animal is that which it eats in the wild. Humans are
no exception."
John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7spner$61$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
> > TITLE: Cereal grains: humanity's double-edged sword [In Process
Citation]
> > AUTHORS: Cordain L
> > AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Exercise and Sport Science, Colorado
> > State University, Fort Collins, USA.
> > SOURCE: World Rev Nutr Diet 1999;84:19-73; No abstract available.
> > [MEDLINE record in process]
> > CITATION IDS: PMID: 10489816 UI: 99419662
>
> I have read through the entire paper.
Thank you
>
> I find nothing in it that would motivate me to stop eating grains
> completely. I refer you to my recent post entitled: Your Diet contains
> Landmines! where I pointed out that ALL foods contain negatives.
>
> Quackery is the promotion of a health claim that doesn't have any
> basis in published scientific research. (any does not necessarily mean
that it has been proven by a double blind clinical trial).
>
>
alex_...@my-deja.com
"John Gohde" <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> The abstract also mentions a new concept called "anti-nutrients".
>
> Who else is talking about "anti-nutrients". Sounds a lot like the concept
> that some foods cause a weight lost because it takes more energy to digest
> them than these so called foods provide. "Anti-nutrients " looks like a way
> of getting people to buy his book.
"Anti-nutrients" is not a new term or concept that they just made up.
The term refers to compounds in food that block or inhibit the
assimilation of some nutrient. Among these are oxalates and phytates.
At this years International Botanical Congress, there were at least a few
speakers who made use of this term when talking about nutrition in places
where grain consumption is high.
--
Alex Brands
Washington University
St. Louis, MO
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Gohde
> So, in conclusion, the paleolithic diet still stands as a valid
> alternative in a world where people need choices.
Define paleolithic diet.
Cordain L seems to think, according to his web site, that it is a high meat
(ie, High Protein) diet. There is no real evidence to support this view.
> Yes, I do eat grains once each week or two- but they're no longer the
> base of my food pyramid- they're more like the top or second row.
Cordain L says eating grains in moderation is perfectly okay. Eating grains
once a week is basically avoiding grains at all costs. Grains can still be
at the base of your diet. You just need to eat a lot of other stuff too.
This has always been a recommendation of mine.
Since excess meat in your diet is positively a heart health risk, the
longevity diet needs a non-animal source of protein. And, that food group
is called Grains (plus legumes, meat, or dairy).
Eating a diet with greater diversity of meats, poultry, fish, and eggs, is
associated with a 50 percent increase in heart disease risk. Those who ate
a diet with a more diverse pattern of vegetables were at approximately a 20
percent lower risk than those who had the least diverse diet in vegetables.
I would say that an ideal diet would be an equal amount of grains and
vegetables, or slightly more grains. When you add the factor of fat, meat,
and fruit you will endup with 20-30% grains?
The closest diet to an ideal Longevity Diet is the Mediterranean Diet, NOT
the paleolithic diet! That is because the paleolithic diet is fundamentally
a high meat diet (which has no basis in fact).
The diet is characterized by abundant plant foods (fruit, vegetables,
breads, other forms of cereals, potatoes, beans, nuts, and seeds), fresh
fruit as the typical daily dessert, olive oil as the principal source of
fat, dairy products (principally cheese and yogurt), and fish and poultry
consumed in low to moderate amounts, zero to four eggs consumed weekly, red
meat consumed in low amounts, and wine consumed in low to moderate amounts,
normally with meals.
In all diets, it is recommended that several servings of whole-grain
products be included each day.
John Gohde
> Eaton SB, Eaton SB III, Konner MJ Paleolithic Nutrition Revisited: A 12
> Year Retrospective on its Nature and Implications. European J. Clinical
> Nutrition (1997)61,207-216.
TITLE: Paleolithic nutrition revisited: a twelve-year retrospective on its
nature and implications [see comments]
AUTHORS: Eaton SB; Eaton SB 3rd; Konner MJ
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Anthropology, Emory University, Atlanta
GA, USA.
SOURCE: Eur J Clin Nutr 1997 Apr;51(4):207-16,Review. No abstract
available.
CITATION IDS: PMID: 9104571 UI: 97258097
Any group who offers up published papers with no abstract available for
support of their position is suspect.
Published papers with no abstract available are not interested in promoting
science. They are interested in making money.
John Gohde
> Primitive man did eat, so there must be a paleolithic diet!!
And what about the Mediterranean diet?
A diet of abundant fruit, vegetables, and whole grains, and the low to
moderate intake of dairy products in traditional Mediterranean diets are
likely to have contributed to the low rates of numerous chronic diseases
observed in these populations.
John Gohde
> Lutz, W.J., "The Colonisation of Europe and Our Western Diseases", Medical
> Hypotheses, Vol. 45, pages 115-120, 1995
> Dr. Lutz, in the face of epidemiological studies that failed to support
the
> current belief that fat intake was at the root of coronary disease and
> cancer, has done his own explorations of epidemiological data.
That is right! An epidemiological study at its worst.
HIs "adaptation theory" is a theory or doublespeak for pure speculation.
I posted numerous citations of real studies, and you post references to a
citation with no abstract available, a referal to buy a book, and a citation
to an epidermiological study that stretches the credibiliy of
epidermiological studies to a new high.
This makes your position highly suspect!
I would favor the Mediterranean diet over the Paleolithic Diet anyday.
Laurel Amberdine
> So, in conclusion, the paleolithic diet still stands as a valid
alternative
> you, you can try doing paleo. It is a valid diet. people did live on it
for
> eat grains once each week or two- but they're no longer the base of my
food
> pyramid- they're more like the top or second row.
>
> Dietpower(tm) and see what happens to your micronutrient intake when you
> substitute all your grain and dairy foods for an equivalent caloric amount
> of fruit and vegetables. The vitamin intake soars.
One component of paleolithic "diets" that people always tend to leave
out--exercise. I think a modern adaptation would go something like this:
Walk 5 miles to the grocery store, snacking on raw nuts, fruit, and greens.
Do some windsprint repeats through the parking lot. Go buy some meat,
including organs and skin. Cook lightly and eat. Repeat for next meal,
making sure to eat a great variety. (Should probably eat some insects
too... but... ick.)
-Laurel
Alf Christophersen
>Yes, Bryan, exactly that. Grains had big advantages- their yields, their
>storage, their predictability, their short maturity cycle (from planting to
>harvest). These advantages far outweighed their disadvantages for early man-
Another important thing is irrigation. There is a famous word around
that means non-irrigated land. When knowledge about irrigation came to
people around Tigris, agriculture changed dramatically and the people
left the non-irrigated land, Gann Edin (not Gan Eden which is something
else, Garden of Eden, or is it??)
---------------------------------
All text is my opinion.
Alf Christophersen, UiO
Tel. +47 22 85 13 27, Fax: 22 85 15 32
URL: http://www.uio.no/~achristo
Hamish Ferguson
Jeez John how thick are you? Shows you don't know what the inside of a
medical library looks like. Just because a Medline abstract does not have an
abstract does not mean the actual paper does not. All articles except
letters to the editor will have an abstract.
Great to see our self appointed health watchdog is so clued up.
Cheers
Hamish
John Gohde wrote in message <7sqp7d$qkt$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>Ben Balzer <bb...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
>> Eaton SB, Eaton SB III, Konner MJ Paleolithic Nutrition Revisited: A 12
>> Year Retrospective on its Nature and Implications. European J. Clinical
>> Nutrition (1997)61,207-216.
>
>TITLE: Paleolithic nutrition revisited: a twelve-year retrospective on its
>nature and implications [see comments]
>AUTHORS: Eaton SB; Eaton SB 3rd; Konner MJ
>AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Anthropology, Emory University, Atlanta
>GA, USA.
>SOURCE: Eur J Clin Nutr 1997 Apr;51(4):207-16,Review. No abstract
>available.
>CITATION IDS: PMID: 9104571 UI: 97258097
>
>Any group who offers up published papers with no abstract available for
>support of their position is suspect.
>
>Published papers with no abstract available are not interested in promoting
>science. They are interested in making money.
>
John Gohde
Hamish Ferguson <Bike...@clear.net.nz> wrote
> Jeez John how thick are you? Shows you don't know what the inside of a
> medical library looks like. Just because a Medline abstract does not have
an
> abstract does not mean the actual paper does not.
No kidding! What side of the bed did you get up on today?
I guess you just jump at another opportunity to be negative.
All articles except
> letters to the editor will have an abstract.
>
> Great to see our self appointed health watchdog is so clued up.
>
> Cheers
>
> Hamish
> John Gohde wrote in message <7sqp7d$qkt$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> >Ben Balzer <bb...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> Eaton SB, Eaton SB III, Konner MJ Paleolithic Nutrition Revisited: A 12
> >> Year Retrospective on its Nature and Implications. European J. Clinical
> >> Nutrition (1997)61,207-216.
> >
> >TITLE: Paleolithic nutrition revisited: a twelve-year retrospective on
its
> >nature and implications [see comments]
> >AUTHORS: Eaton SB; Eaton SB 3rd; Konner MJ
> >AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Anthropology, Emory University,
Atlanta
> >GA, USA.
> >SOURCE: Eur J Clin Nutr 1997 Apr;51(4):207-16,Review. No abstract
> >available.
> >CITATION IDS: PMID: 9104571 UI: 97258097
> >
> >Any group who offers up published papers with no abstract available for
> >support of their position is suspect.
> >
> >Published papers with no abstract available are not interested in
promoting
> >science. They are interested in making money.
> >
John Gohde
> Ben Balzer <bb...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> > So, in conclusion, the paleolithic diet still stands as a valid
> > alternative in a world where people need choices.
>
> Define paleolithic diet.
The Paleolithic Diet is allegedly what man ate during the Paloeothic ERA
40,000 to 15,000 years ago. Its central theme is that the principal of
evolutionary adaption states that man has insufficient genic experience
eating grains, since they arrived during the agricultural revolution only
some 10,000 years ago. Therefore, the Paleolithic Diet contains absolutely
NO GRAINS. Furthermore, it is high in meat.
This a bunch of nonsense. Man ate like a scavenger for most of his genetic
history. Man ate dead and rotting corpses of diseased animals for most of
his genetic history. Man ate anything he could stuff into his mouth for
most of his genetic history. Man at that time had absolutely no idea what
was good for him. The basis of having to wait 2 million years of genetic
history before you can safely eat a food item is pure Quackery!
Second, there is absolutely no evidence that Paleolithic Man ate a lot of
meat.
Individuals interested in a natural diet should strongly consider the
Mediterranean Diet.
Hamish Ferguson
No John, just exposing quackery when I see it.
Cheers
Hamish
John Gohde wrote in message <7ss7no$mmv$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
Martin E. Lewitt
John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Since excess meat in your diet is positively a heart health risk, the
>longevity diet needs a non-animal source of protein. And, that food group
>is called Grains (plus legumes, meat, or dairy).
The studies that claim to establish meat as a heart health risk do
not establish the meat is a risk factor when carb consumption is
low nor do they establish that the risk still exists for individuals
who are not homo or heterozygous for the hematochromatis (sp?), the
liver iron storage disease. Recent studies have found that even
the fairly common heterozygous state (greater than 10%) is associated
with higher cardiovascular risk. Unless this controlled for, the
results may not even be generalizable to the "normal" high carb population.
Just the same, there may still be some increased risk from high iron
even for the genetically "normal". It may be wise, whether you know
your genetic status or not, to not unnecessarily increase your
consumption of iron. Meat eating men and post-menopausal women may
benefit from switching to non-iron containing vitamin supplements and
to lower-iron white meats and fish.
I still consume moderate amounts of red meat, but also high amounts
of tea (ice black) which reduces the absorption of iron.
If I find out I am in the iron storage risk group, I would probably take
a more conservative approach. -- Martin
Martin E. Lewitt
>
>And what about the Mediterranean diet?
>
>A diet of abundant fruit, vegetables, and whole grains, and the low to
>moderate intake of dairy products in traditional Mediterranean diets are
>likely to have contributed to the low rates of numerous chronic diseases
>observed in these populations.
Is there any recent revisionism in mediterranean diet results? I know
the so called "french paradox" has recently received tough criticism
because of the way cause-of-death records are (not) kept in France, when this
is properly accounted for there is apparently no "french paradox" at all.
Alf Christophersen
>Hello
>
>Jeez John how thick are you? Shows you don't know what the inside of a
>medical library looks like. Just because a Medline abstract does not have an
>abstract does not mean the actual paper does not. All articles except
>letters to the editor will have an abstract.
Reviews normally doesn't have abstracts in paper either. And there are
several serials that do not print abstracts too.
bb
Martin E. Lewitt <lew...@swcp.com> wrote in message
news:7ssnk1$7...@llama.swcp.com...
> In article <7sqn0g$jhf$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> > The studies that claim to establish meat as a heart health risk do
> not establish the meat is a risk factor when carb consumption is
> low .
>
This is fascinating as in Agricultural Science feeding studies, lean muscle
fat contents are increased by certain foods- I won't say high carbohydrate
as these foods are grains and grains are carbohydrate plus other goodies-
protease inhibitors, lectins etc. This is why farmers feed cattle
(digastric) and pigs (monogastric) soymeal and cornmeal for a few weeks
before taking them to market (hey John, they haven't had time to evolve to
cope with grains!). This raises the question that if tissue fat deposition
is increased by grains, which they are undoubtedly are, does this have
implications for the causation of cardiovascular disease??? You tell me.
Ben Balzer
Martin E. Lewitt
Martin E. Lewitt <lew...@swcp.com> wrote:
>The studies that claim to establish meat as a heart health risk do
>not establish the meat is a risk factor when carb consumption is
>who are not homo or heterozygous for the hematochromatis (sp?), the
>liver iron storage disease. Recent studies have found that even
>the fairly common heterozygous state (greater than 10%) is associated
>with higher cardiovascular risk. Unless this controlled for, the
>results may not even be generalizable to the "normal" high carb population.
I had forgotten how recent these Hemochromatosis results were, since they
aren't in medline yet, I'd better point y'all to them.
Here is a press article:
http://www.medscape.com/reuters/prof/1999/09/09.21/ep09219a.html
And here are the abstracts:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/12/1268
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/12/1274
Here is an excerpt of the press article. -- Martin
Hemochromatosis Gene Carriers at Risk of Cardiovascular Death
WESTPORT, Sep 21 (Reuters Health) - The results of two large studies
show that carriers of the hemochromatosis gene have small increases in
iron stores and a significant increase in risk of death from
cardiovascular disease.
The new findings are published today in the September 21st issue of
Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.
One study established a mortality rate ratio of 1.5 for hemachromatosis
gene carriers among 12,239 women studied by Dr. Mark Roest and
colleagues of Utrecht University in The Netherlands. The other, a study
of 1,150 men conducted by Dr. Jukka T. Salonen and others at the
University of Kuopio, in Finland, established that hemachromatosis gene
carriers are at more than twice the risk of myocardial infarction
compared with noncarriers.
"These are large studies, one of women and one of men that both provide
important new support..." for the hypothesis that excess iron stores
increase cardiovascular risk, Dr. Jerome L. Sullivan, of the University
of Florida at Gainesville, told Reuters Health. Dr. Sullivan, who
published an editorial accompanying the two studies, first proposed the
"iron hypothesis" of cardiovascular risk in 1981.
"Carriers are a large part of the population. Something like 10% to 30%
of the population carry at least one gene [for hemachromatosis]," Dr.
Sullivan said. "Full-blown hemachromatosis affects about 1 in 200
individuals. Carriers almost universally don't know that they are at
increased risk...They have almost no increase in iron stores, but that
small increase is significant and that small increase is probably what
caused the increased incidence [of cardiovascular death]."
bb
Laurel Amberdine <cir...@NOSPAMmtco.com> wrote in message
news:5%6I3.350$4X3....@ord-read.news.verio.net...
> One component of paleolithic "diets" that people always tend to leave
> out--exercise. I think a modern adaptation would go something like this:
>
> Walk 5 miles to the grocery store, snacking on raw nuts, fruit, and
greens.
> Do some windsprint repeats through the parking lot. Go buy some meat,
> including organs and skin. Cook lightly and eat. Repeat for next meal,
> making sure to eat a great variety. (Should probably eat some insects
> too... but... ick.)
>
> -Laurel
>
then what will you eat? No grains allowed. You will have to eat what
everyone lived on 100 years ago- root vegetables. Ref
http://www.lis.ab.ca/walton/old/index.html . It is amazing how little seems
to be known about root vegetables. With extensive searching, I was unable to
find out their antioxidant or ORAC level. Yet, they were the staple for many
centuries- they're not very glamorous, but that should not have stopped our
valiant scientists and sceptics and quack hunters.
Ben Balzer
bb
> Ben Balzer <bb...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> > Primitive man did eat, so there must be a paleolithic diet!!
>
> And what about the Mediterranean diet?
>
> A diet of abundant fruit, vegetables, and whole grains, and the low to
> moderate intake of dairy products in traditional Mediterranean diets are
> likely to have contributed to the low rates of numerous chronic diseases
> observed in these populations.
>
good to see that you know more than one diet- for a moment there, I thought
you were Pyramid-entrapped. The Mediterranean diet is however much closer to
the Paleolithic diet than your beloved Pyramid-of-chronic-disease. In fact,
most nutritional health findings are easily interpreted by referring to the
Paleolithic diet as the archetypal perfect diet. The clues of nutritional
science are like pointers on a foggy map. They all point towards the
Paleolithic diet. It's like the top of the mountain. I'm a little biased
I'll admit, because the diet makes me feel good.
But you still haven't answered the question as to what YOU think a
Paleolithic diet is. You keep telling everyone what you think it is said to
be (a high meat diet), but it obviously isn't that- you said so yourself and
you're the smartest person on this whole list. So, please tell me what a
real Paleolithic diet is (or was), because if anyone should know it would be
you.
John Gohde
> John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:7ss9cb$8t$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
> > John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > Ben Balzer <bb...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > So, in conclusion, the paleolithic diet still stands as a valid
> > > > alternative in a world where people need choices.
> > >
> > > Define paleolithic diet.
> >
> > The Paleolithic Diet is allegedly what man ate during the Paloeothic ERA
> > 40,000 to 15,000 years ago. Its central theme is that the principal of
> > evolutionary adaption states that man has insufficient genic experience
> > eating grains, since they arrived during the agricultural revolution
only
> > some 10,000 years ago. Therefore, the Paleolithic Diet contains
> absolutely
> > NO GRAINS. Furthermore, it is high in meat.
> >
> > This a bunch of nonsense. Man ate like a scavenger for most of his
> genetic
> > history. Man ate dead and rotting corpses of diseased animals for most
> of
> > his genetic history. Man ate anything he could stuff into his mouth for
> > most of his genetic history.
>
> You're getting desperate John. I really think you're losing it. Man is the
> most feared hunter of all. His only natural enemy of any substance
> is...................other humans. All wild animals are instinctively
afraid
> of man except a few big mommas like elephants and buffalo. Humans didn't
do
> that scavenging crap. Who do you think killed off all the European
megafauna
> in the Paleolithic era- cane toads perhaps?
You have watched too many cowboy movies!
And, remember you are claiming genetic history! For most of the time man
spent on earth, he was a scavenger, NOT a hunter. The notion of the great
hunter/gather is more romance than fact. Also, there were no great herds of
Buffalo for the great Scavenger/hunter called man to feast on meat. Sure,
early man caught an occasional rabbit to feast on (Ha! ... Hah! .... Ha!),
but when he did hunt it was quite seasonal and was for a relatively short
period of time genetically speaking.
John Gohde
> John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Since excess meat in your diet is positively a heart health risk, the
> >longevity diet needs a non-animal source of protein. And, that food
> > group is called Grains (plus legumes, meat, or dairy).
> The studies that claim to establish meat as a heart health risk do
> not establish the meat is a risk factor when carb consumption is
> low
That reminds me ... Proponents of the Paleolithic Diet are quick to
subscribe to a lot of wack'o beliefs!
Like the Wack'O statement you made above.
Carbohydrates also happen to include fruits and vegetables, as well as
grains. So if eating fruits and vegetables is also bad for you, what do you
apparently eat?
Meat ... Meat ... Meat!
John Gohde
> Now, let's examine John's original post in a little more detail:
> >Hence, merely switching to modern red meat will in fact produce health
> problems due to the high saturated >fat content of domesticated meat.
>
> I think you meant to say the high fat content of GRAIN FED DOMESTICATED
MEAT
> (20%), as opposed to the low fat content of GRASS FED DOMESTICATED MEAT
> (5%). Grain has the same effect on pork. That's why farmers feed cornmeal
> and soymeal to their animals before selling them- university tests show it
> improves yields and marketing research indicates that the consumer prefers
> the taste of the fattier lean meat.
>
> That's why nutritionists can gain from reading agricultural data.
>
> Now, if grain had the same effect on humans it could explain why we're all
> so goddam fat.
Sorry! But, we are NOT all so goddam fat. In fact, some of us are quite
skinny. There have been a number of Grain Favorable posts made by other
callers who show none of the negative effects of grains the Paleolithic
Wack'O's claim to be true.
In fact, I directly quoted from one of the Paleolithic Diet Research
Studies which said point blank that eating Grains in moderation is perfectly
harmless for most people.
John Gohde
> John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Ben Balzer <bb...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> >> Primitive man did eat, so there must be a paleolithic diet!!
> >
> >And what about the Mediterranean diet?
> >
> >A diet of abundant fruit, vegetables, and whole grains, and the low to
> >moderate intake of dairy products in traditional Mediterranean diets are
> >likely to have contributed to the low rates of numerous chronic diseases
> >observed in these populations.
>
> Is there any recent revisionism in mediterranean diet results? I know
> the so called "french paradox" has recently received tough criticism
> because of the way cause-of-death records are (not) kept in France, when
> this is properly accounted for there is apparently no "french paradox" at
all.
There are hundreds of published Mediterranean Diet studies. Quite a few of
them have abstracts PUBLICLY available on Medline.
There are very big differences between the Mediterranean and Paleolithic
Diets. For one, the Mediterranean Diet has a large population of people
still living which enables great research studies to be conducted. The
Mediterranean Diet also happens to be a High Carbohydrate and a Low Meat
Diet. The Mediterranean Diet has documented results in "Real" scientific
studies to back its claims up. Recent studies have been published that sow
that the Mediterranean Diet produces better results than those of the
standard Medically prescribed heart diets. Furthermore, anyone can follow
the Mediterranean Diet without being a Wack'O!
I am in the process now of developing a detailed description of the
Mediterranean Diet.
Timothy J. Lee
|But you still haven't answered the question as to what YOU think a
|Paleolithic diet is. You keep telling everyone what you think it is said to
|be (a high meat diet), but it obviously isn't that-
What do you consider a paleolithic diet? The newsgroup has in the
past seen supposed paleolithic diet advocates who advocate a high
meat diet (using people like the Inuit as examples). Others have
claimed that low carb dieting was paleolithic... on the other hand,
tropical hunter / gatherer people probably eat a lot of vegetables
and fruits, probably getting much more carbohydrates than low carb
dieters (or Inuit) eat.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee timlee@
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Timothy J. Lee
|I think you meant to say the high fat content of GRAIN FED DOMESTICATED MEAT
|(20%), as opposed to the low fat content of GRASS FED DOMESTICATED MEAT
|(5%). Grain has the same effect on pork. That's why farmers feed cornmeal
|and soymeal to their animals before selling them- university tests show it
|improves yields and marketing research indicates that the consumer prefers
|the taste of the fattier lean meat.
|
|so goddam fat.
Grain happens to be the calorie dense part of whatever grass it comes
from. So it isn't surprising that herbivorous animals can be fattened
by feeding them more grain compared to the green vegetable part of the
grass.
Humans can, of course, lower calorie intake by replacing high calorie
density food with lower calorie density food. That isn't grain specific,
though grains are in the middle of the scale (fats, fatty meat, and
highly processed junk food being the most calorie dense, while green
vegetables generally being the least calorie dense).
Alf Christophersen
>This is fascinating as in Agricultural Science feeding studies, lean muscle
>fat contents are increased by certain foods- I won't say high carbohydrate
>as these foods are grains and grains are carbohydrate plus other goodies-
>protease inhibitors, lectins etc. This is why farmers feed cattle
>(digastric) and pigs (monogastric) soymeal and cornmeal for a few weeks
>before taking them to market (hey John, they haven't had time to evolve to
>cope with grains!). This raises the question that if tissue fat deposition
>is increased by grains, which they are undoubtedly are, does this have
>implications for the causation of cardiovascular disease??? You tell me.
Grains fed animals do not only contain carbohydrates, but also lot of
oil, preferably of omega-6 family. That component is also important for
animals fed grains. Some of the acids are converted by liver into
arachidonic acid, a fatty acid that is very toxic as free fatty acid (a
very few mg injected in a rat tail kills the rat) and should be
preferably be made by our own liver, not ingested. (But, in fact, it is
the arachidonate that is the fatty acid that do the work observed as
essential fatty acid, that is, lack of arachidonate in our cell
membranes is just fatal)
(To compare, if you make electricty as hydropower electricity, lack of
rain would give empty magasines in the end and lack of electricity
production, but water in your pipeline will not exchange the lack of
water in the magasines, and thus no electricity)
Alf Christophersen
>As well as getting rid of your car, try getting rid of your refrigerator-
>then what will you eat? No grains allowed. You will have to eat what
>everyone lived on 100 years ago- root vegetables. Ref
>http://www.lis.ab.ca/walton/old/index.html . It is amazing how little seems
>to be known about root vegetables. With extensive searching, I was unable to
>find out their antioxidant or ORAC level. Yet, they were the staple for many
>centuries- they're not very glamorous, but that should not have stopped our
>valiant scientists and sceptics and quack hunters.
Salted meat, salted fish, dried meat, cured meat, dried fish, cured
fish, what about them??
Excuse me, these food stuff has been around for centuries and centuries.
No, people was not living solely of root vegetables, not 100 years ago,
neither 10000 years ago, probably not 25000 years ago.
And by the way, what is the proof that wheat and other cereals was not
used 50000 years ago? The revolution was probably not the finding of the
cereals 15000 years ago, but the realisation that irrigation might
increase tremendously the production of food stuff like cereals etc.
What mankind left 15000 was the non-irrigated lands and that had a
two-sided effect. More people could survive, but health for each person
would decline because the bad health effects of several of the food
stuffs (among them, wheat). Archaeologists find that the bones of people
from paleolithic era are healthier than those from the neolithic era.
Reepicheep
[snip]
>Just the same, there may still be some increased risk from high iron
>even for the genetically "normal". It may be wise, whether you know
>your genetic status or not, to not unnecessarily increase your
>consumption of iron. Meat eating men and post-menopausal women may
>benefit from switching to non-iron containing vitamin supplements and
>to lower-iron white meats and fish.
A local news report discussed the link between high iron intake and increased risk of heart
disease. And it was mentioned that men and post-menopausal women should avoid iron
supplements and excessive amounts of meat. They also showed the "Nutrition Facts" on the
side of a cereal box which contained 100% of the RDA for iron. However, they didn't
specifically mention fortified cereals, but they should have.
Thanks to our stupid government and the WIC program, most cereals are now fortified with
45% of the RDA for iron. And note, that RDA is based on what children and pre-menopausal
women need (i.e. 18 mg). Men and post-menopausal women only need 10 mg. So that 45% is
actually 81% of the latter's needs.
Moreover, since the serving sizes for cereals are rather small, I would guess that most men
who eat cereal probably eat at least double the given serving size, at least I know I do. So that
would mean a man would get over 160% of the iron he needs for the entire day, just from a
bowl of cereal! That is a lot of iron.
Such excessive iron was causing me GI problems. It took a little time to track down the source
of the problem, but once I switched to buying all of my cereal at a health food store (which
don't add iron to their cereals), the GI problems went away.
In addition, I have severe low back problems. And it seemed like my back problem improved
somewhat when I stopped eating the fortified cereals. This would make some sense as one of
the problems with my back is dehydration of the lumbar disks. An Internet physical therapist
friend of mine told me that excessive iron is one theory as to what causes disk dehydration.
And now, it does seem like my back bothers me more when I eat red meat. So I am seriously
considering eliminating it altogether from my diet.
Now the news report mentioned that the best way to be sure you don't have excessive iron in
your system is by donating blood. I haven't tried that yet, but probably should. It would be a
way of benefiting others along with possibly helping myself.
So the moral of the story is, excessive iron is a problem. As such, sorry Paleolithic Diet
people, but a high meat diet seems unlikely to me to be the "ideal" diet. Now I guess you could
argue that our ancient ancestor's got cut and bleed lot from hunting all that wild game, but that
would be reaching.
><> Reepicheep <><
><> Darkness to Light <><
><> http://www.dtl.org <><
Reepicheep
>> In article <7sqn0g$jhf$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
[snip]
>This is fascinating as in Agricultural Science feeding studies, lean muscle
>fat contents are increased by certain foods- I won't say high carbohydrate
>as these foods are grains and grains are carbohydrate plus other goodies-
>protease inhibitors, lectins etc. This is why farmers feed cattle
>(digastric) and pigs (monogastric) soymeal and cornmeal for a few weeks
>before taking them to market (hey John, they haven't had time to evolve to
>cope with grains!). This raises the question that if tissue fat deposition
>is increased by grains, which they are undoubtedly are, does this have
>implications for the causation of cardiovascular disease??? You tell me.
What do cows and pigs have to do with humans? They're completely different species with
completely different digestive systems and genetic, developmental histories. Moreover, the fat
of the animals is increased by feeding them more than they need and preventing them from
moving about much. So the only moral of your story would be, if you eat too much and don't
exercise enough you'll gain weight. No kidding!
David Lloyd-Jones
Reepicheep <reepic...@SPAMdtl.org> wrote
> What do cows and pigs have to do with humans? They're completely different
species with
> completely different digestive systems and genetic, developmental
histories.
Reep,
You're quite right about the cow. The pig, however, is digestively very
close to the human. It is similarly omnivorous, and, what is interesting, it
has remarkably similar gut flora at every stage from stem to stern.
"The cat looks down on the human, and sees an animal. The dog looks up to
the human, and sees its god. The pig looks the human in the eye and sees its
equal." That gets it about right.
-dlj.
Alf Christophersen
>And, remember you are claiming genetic history! For most of the time man
>spent on earth, he was a scavenger, NOT a hunter. The notion of the great
>hunter/gather is more romance than fact. Also, there were no great herds of
>Buffalo for the great Scavenger/hunter called man to feast on meat. Sure,
>early man caught an occasional rabbit to feast on (Ha! ... Hah! .... Ha!),
>but when he did hunt it was quite seasonal and was for a relatively short
>period of time genetically speaking.
And the rest of the time he was riding a horse, herding lots of cows (as
a nomade) over the stepeps in Asia or over huge areas in Europe (before
people settled in Europe) where there was no ice or maybe herding rein
deer farther north btw. ice glaciers etc..
Alf Christophersen
>Grain happens to be the calorie dense part of whatever grass it comes
>from. So it isn't surprising that herbivorous animals can be fattened
>by feeding them more grain compared to the green vegetable part of the
>grass.
It is not enough to increase grain intake to fatten the animals. You
also have to restrict their possibility to move quite a lot. Some
animals are not allowed to move at all to be fattened, like geese and
some kind of chickens. That is also what makes many humans fat. Not
because they eat, but because they have no use of the energy because
they sit still 95% of day. The more active the day is, the slimmer is
the person if they digest the same amount of calories.
(But people loving sitting the whole day before TV looking and drinking
a Coce once pr 10 minute hate to accept those facts. They try everything
else to explain why they weigh 200 kg or more)
Reepicheep
[snip]
>There are very big differences between the Mediterranean and Paleolithic
>Diets. For one, the Mediterranean Diet has a large population of people
>still living which enables great research studies to be conducted.
You raise a good point here: until a sufficient number of people actually follow the Paleolithic
Diet for a sufficiently long period of time for studies to be done, it is now only theory as to
whether it is healthy or not. A big question mark to me has to do with cancer. Does the PD
raise or lower one's cancer risk. Only a large sample, long-term study would be able to
answer such a question. Maybe we'll know in a few decades. In the meantime, a mostly plant
based diet has been shown to decrease one's risk of cancer, and other degenerative
diseases as well.
> The
>Mediterranean Diet also happens to be a High Carbohydrate and a Low Meat
>Diet. The Mediterranean Diet has documented results in "Real" scientific
>studies to back its claims up. Recent studies have been published that sow
>that the Mediterranean Diet produces better results than those of the
>standard Medically prescribed heart diets. Furthermore, anyone can follow
>the Mediterranean Diet without being a Wack'O!
Why you have to follow up some good comments with a snide remark is beyond me. There is
no reason to call someone you disagree with a "wacko."
Martin E. Lewitt
Reepicheep <reepic...@SPAMdtl.org> wrote:
>So the moral of the story is, excessive iron is a problem. As such,
>sorry Paleolithic Diet people, but a high meat diet seems unlikely to
>me to be the "ideal" diet. Now I guess you could argue that our ancient
>ancestor's got cut and bleed lot from hunting all that wild game, but
>that would be reaching.
Not so far fetched as you might think, but much of the "bleeding" could
be internal, such as the anemia problems experienced by marathon runners
today. The pounding of this kind of exercise destroys a lot of red blood
cells. The whole vegatables consumed on the paleo diet would also dilute
and bind some some of the iron. However, it may be that iron "problems"
have actually been selected for by evolution, which was probably far more
"concerned" about young menstrating, pregnant and lactating women
getting enough iron, than with men living beyond the age of 50.
I may also be that the risk posed by saturated fat is mediated
by its effect on iron levels. The full article might be interesting
on this appended abstract, and further studies in humans that also
see what the relationships between these nutrients are in the
different hemochromatosis genes.
-- Martin
Cholesterol-lowering nature of unsaturated fat in rats may be
due to its inability to increase hepatic iron.
Fields M; Lewis CG
Metabolism, 48(2):200-4 1999 Feb
Abstract
The present investigation was conducted to determine whether the
cholesterol-raising properties of saturated fat and
cholesterol-lowering properties of unsaturated fat are associated with
levels of hepatic iron. The magnitude of hepatic iron retention was
manipulated by feeding rats diets that were either copper-deficient or
-adequate, iron-adequate or -supplemented, and contained either beef
tallow or corn oil. Weanling male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly
divided into eight dietary groups according to the type of dietary fat
(beef tallow or corn oil) and level of dietary copper (0.74 or 6.9
microg Cu/g diet) or iron (44.4 or 86.7 microg Fe/g diet).
Beef tallow and copper deficiency alone increased hepatic iron levels,
which in turn were associated with increased plasma cholesterol. When
the three dietary factors were combined, ie, iron, beef tallow, and
copper deficiency, they induced the highest magnitude of hepatic iron
retention, which in turn was associated with the highest concentration
of plasma cholesterol. In contrast, when hepatic iron retention was not
increased, such as by feeding a diet containing corn oil or by
consumption of a copper-adequate diet, plasma cholesterol was not
elevated. Based on these data, it is suggested that nutrients that have
the ability to increase hepatic iron have the potential to increase
plasma cholesterol.
Martin E. Lewitt
>> not establish the meat is a risk factor when carb consumption is
>> low
>
>That reminds me ... Proponents of the Paleolithic Diet are quick to
>subscribe to a lot of wack'o beliefs!
>
>Like the Wack'O statement you made above.
If you have studies that show meat as a risk factor on a low carb diet,
please reference them. Or is Wack'O a synonym for "true" in your lingo.
>Carbohydrates also happen to include fruits and vegetables, as well as
>grains. So if eating fruits and vegetables is also bad for you, what do you
>apparently eat?
>
>Meat ... Meat ... Meat!
Nuts and non-starchy veggies as well. I actually only have red meat
once or twice a week, though for Caloric reasons I am thinking of
increasing meat at the expense of some of my cheese consumption.
Meat seems to be more filling on an iso-caloric basis, probably
due to the water content.
-- Martin
bb
John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7ss9cb$8t$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
> John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
> > > alternative in a world where people need choices.
> >
> > Define paleolithic diet.
>
> The Paleolithic Diet is allegedly what man ate during the Paloeothic ERA
> 40,000 to 15,000 years ago. Its central theme is that the principal of
> evolutionary adaption states that man has insufficient genic experience
> eating grains, since they arrived during the agricultural revolution only
> some 10,000 years ago. Therefore, the Paleolithic Diet contains
absolutely
> NO GRAINS. Furthermore, it is high in meat.
>
> This a bunch of nonsense. Man ate like a scavenger for most of his
genetic
> history. Man ate dead and rotting corpses of diseased animals for most
of
> his genetic history. Man ate anything he could stuff into his mouth for
> most of his genetic history.
You're getting desperate John. I really think you're losing it. Man is the
most feared hunter of all. His only natural enemy of any substance
is...................other humans. All wild animals are instinctively afraid
of man except a few big mommas like elephants and buffalo. Humans didn't do
that scavenging crap. Who do you think killed off all the European megafauna
in the Paleolithic era- cane toads perhaps?
Man at that time had absolutely no idea what
> was good for him.
BUT THEN along came John GohdeI'mGood with all the answers. John you don't
know Jack Shit, you're making all this up as you go along. Therefore you are
a quack according to your own standards (but not mine, I still think you're
a wonderful human being).
The basis of having to wait 2 million years of genetic
> history before you can safely eat a food item is pure Quackery!
Run that past me again I missed it . The basis of not eating something for 2
million years is that it isn't edible. You then discover cooking and
eventually give up barbecuing meat and decide to cook a few plants and then
some Einstein (did I mention that their brains averaged 200 cc larger than
ours?) realises that you could cook grain and then it's edible. But 10,000
years later we discover that it contains antinutrients- oh well, back to the
drawing board- we all live long enough to worry about our health now that
we've gotten rid of those pesky sabretooth tigers..
>
> Second, there is absolutely no evidence that Paleolithic Man ate a lot of
> meat.
Thirdly, your firstly is wrong. Fourthly, you can't back up your claims .
Therefore you are a quack. Fifthly, they didn't just kill those megafauna,
they et them all up, just like momma said.
> Individuals interested in a natural diet should strongly consider the
> Mediterranean Diet.
Translation: "Even though it isn't the natural diet that you're after it's
the only way I can slip out of this mess." It's nice diet and much better
than the standard western supermarket diet, as it's a lot closer to
paleoperfection.
>
>
> John Gohde, Health Nag
>
> http://www.hcrc.org/faqs/claims.html
> http://www.quackwatch.com/
> "Quackery has existed since the first knave met the first fool."
> --Voltai
re
>
> Anyone genuinely interested in diet, nutrition, and nutritional
> supplements should take a strong stand against Nutrition Quackery,
> Food Faddism, and Nutritional Supplements Quackery anywhere
> they see it. If you don't, no one will take your interests seriously.
>
> Quackery is the promotion of a health claim that doesn't have any
> basis in published scientific research.
>
>
bb
>
Now, let's examine John's original post in a little more detail:
>Hence, merely switching to modern red meat will in fact produce health
problems due to the high saturated >fat content of domesticated meat.
I think you meant to say the high fat content of GRAIN FED DOMESTICATED MEAT
(20%), as opposed to the low fat content of GRASS FED DOMESTICATED MEAT
(5%). Grain has the same effect on pork. That's why farmers feed cornmeal
and soymeal to their animals before selling them- university tests show it
improves yields and marketing research indicates that the consumer prefers
the taste of the fattier lean meat.
That's why nutritionists can gain from reading agricultural data.
Now, if grain had the same effect on humans it could explain why we're all
so goddam fat. Sorry I don't have any human intervention trials, but if
you'd care to show me one for any other diet that exceeded 8 % long-term
success rate in the treatment of obesity, I'll swoon.
Sorry I don't have time to go through the rest of it yet.
Ben Balzer
--
"The ideal diet for any animal is that which it eats in the wild. Humans are
no exception."
"Ask a dietitian how to lose weight and you'll be told to eat bread, corn,
soy, cereals etc.. Ask a farmer how to fatten a pig and you'll be told to
feed it bread, corn, soy, cereals etc. There is a discrepancy that needs
explanation."
Ben Balzer
Reepicheep <reepic...@SPAMdtl.org> wrote in message
news:efuI3.675$Tg3.1...@news.sgi.net...
> >> In article <7sqn0g$jhf$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>
> [snip]
>
> >This is fascinating as in Agricultural Science feeding studies, lean
muscle
> >fat contents are increased by certain foods- I won't say high
carbohydrate
> >as these foods are grains and grains are carbohydrate plus other goodies-
> >protease inhibitors, lectins etc. This is why farmers feed cattle
> >(digastric) and pigs (monogastric) soymeal and cornmeal for a few weeks
> >before taking them to market (hey John, they haven't had time to evolve
to
> >cope with grains!). This raises the question that if tissue fat
deposition
> >is increased by grains, which they are undoubtedly are, does this have
> >implications for the causation of cardiovascular disease??? You tell me.
>
They're mammals, their digestive systems use trypsin, chymotrypsin, they
have a pancreas, etc etc. unfortunately, it's not ethical to do feedlot
experiments on humans. Although you need an ethics committee with an animal
libber on it to experiment on a rat, there doesn't seem to be such a problem
in Ag Science food animals.
They're completely different species with
> completely different digestive systems and genetic, developmental
histories. Moreover, the fat
> of the animals is increased by feeding them more than they need and
preventing them from
> moving about much. So the only moral of your story would be, if you eat
too much and don't
> exercise enough you'll gain weight. No kidding!
Hey, you need animal data. Don't you know pigs are closer to us than rats.
Inference isn't 100% I'll agree.
In my next life I'm coming back as a rat- the scientists have found a cure
for nearly every cancer in rats!
Ben Balzer
John Gohde
> John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Martin E. Lewitt <lew...@swcp.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> The studies that claim to establish meat as a heart health risk do
> >> not establish the meat is a risk factor when carb consumption is
> >> low
> >
> >That reminds me ... Proponents of the Paleolithic Diet are quick to
> >subscribe to a lot of wack'o beliefs!
> >
> >Like the Wack'O statement you made above.
>
> If you have studies that show meat as a risk factor on a low carb diet,
> please reference them. Or is Wack'O a synonym for "true" in your lingo.
I am getting rather tired of being the only person posting citations. I
have posted over 100 abstracts and or hyperlinks to this newsgroup this
year. So, for now on ... try looking them up in Medline yourself!
> >Carbohydrates also happen to include fruits and vegetables, as well as
> >grains. So if eating fruits and vegetables is also bad for you, what do
you
> >apparently eat?
> >
> >Meat ... Meat ... Meat!
>
> Nuts and non-starchy veggies as well.
Nuts and non-starch veggies happen also to be carbohyrdrates. Nuts contain
some incomplete protein too as well as fat.
Ben Balzer
> I am getting rather tired of being the only person posting citations. I
> have posted over 100 abstracts and or hyperlinks to this newsgroup this
> year. So, for now on ... try looking them up in Medline yourself!
You're my hero.
>
>
> > >Carbohydrates also happen to include fruits and vegetables, as well as
> > >grains. So if eating fruits and vegetables is also bad for you, what
do
> you
> > >apparently eat?
> > >
> > >Meat ... Meat ... Meat!
> >
> > Nuts and non-starchy veggies as well.
>
> Nuts and non-starch veggies happen also to be carbohyrdrates. Nuts
contain
> some incomplete protein too as well as fat.
No, they're not. They are rich sources of carbohydrate. They are not
carbohydrate. This looseness of thinking will only perpuate your Neolithic
food myths.
Ben Balzer
Michael Sherman
>Nuts ... happen also to be carbohydrates. Nuts contain
>some incomplete protein too as well as fat.
80% or more of the calories in a typical nut come from fat
(no offense intended, John :-).
I don't think it makes sense to think of them as
carbohydrates, although they do contain some high-fiber
carb.
Here are a few stats from USDA SR12, per 100g:
Nut Fat(%cal) Protein Carb/Fiber
Macadamia 74g (94%) 8g 14g/9g
Pecans 68g (91%) 8g 18g/8g
Walnuts 57g (85%) 24g 12g/5g
Almonds 52g (80%) 20g 20g/11g
Peanuts 49g (78%) 26g 16g/9g
sherm (appropriately in the Nut column)
David Lloyd-Jones
Alf Christophersen <alf.chris...@basalmed.uio.no> wrote
>
> And the rest of the time he was riding a horse, herding lots of cows (as
> a nomade) over the stepeps in Asia or over huge areas in Europe (before
> people settled in Europe) where there was no ice or maybe herding rein
> deer farther north btw. ice glaciers etc..
>
This is false. Bogus history, bogus paleontology, bogus economics. Total
fantasy.
Domestication of animals comes very late in human history, and the cow is a
recent invention, developed within the last 6,000 years. As for herding, it
is a development from trading-village life, where animals were first
domesticated as an outgrowth of the meat trade. (Hunters would get a better
price for live animals than for dead, because they didn't rot.) Nomadic
herding, in turn, is an evolution from herding: it is that specialized form
of herding which follows the seasons.
-dlj.
Martin E. Lewitt
John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Martin E. Lewitt <lew...@swcp.com> wrote in message
>> John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >Martin E. Lewitt <lew...@swcp.com> wrote in message
>> >> The studies that claim to establish meat as a heart health risk do
>> >> not establish the meat is a risk factor when carb consumption is
>> >> low
>> >
>> >That reminds me ... Proponents of the Paleolithic Diet are quick to
>> >subscribe to a lot of wack'o beliefs!
>> >
>> >Like the Wack'O statement you made above.
>>
>> If you have studies that show meat as a risk factor on a low carb diet,
>> please reference them. Or is Wack'O a synonym for "true" in your lingo.
>
>have posted over 100 abstracts and or hyperlinks to this newsgroup this
>year. So, for now on ... try looking them up in Medline yourself!
They are NOT there which is the basis for my original statement which
you called Wack'O, apparently without basis.
>> >Carbohydrates also happen to include fruits and vegetables, as well as
>> >grains. So if eating fruits and vegetables is also bad for you, what do
>you
>> >apparently eat?
>> >
>> >Meat ... Meat ... Meat!
>>
>> Nuts and non-starchy veggies as well.
>
>Nuts and non-starch veggies happen also to be carbohyrdrates. Nuts contain
>some incomplete protein too as well as fat.
These are high fibre items, while technically fibre is carbohydrate,
it does not contribute to the percentage of Calories from carbohydrate,
to glucose in the blood stream or to the induction of insulin.
My raw almonds per quarter cup serving size contain:
fat 15g (1g is saturated)
protein 8g
carbohydrate 5g (4g of which is fibre)
Calories 190 (5 Calories from carbs)
I get plenty of animal protein so I don't need to worry about the
incompleteness of these vegetable sources.
The non-starchy veggies do get most of their Calories from carbs, but
most of the carb content is also non-caloric cellulose.
Meat contains some glucose and glycogen, are you going to call it
a carbohydrate as well?
My diet is low in carbohydrates, yet contains plenty of veggies and
even a significant percentage of protein from vegatable sources (probably
about 20%). It is rather like the mediterranean diet without the
grain products, though a key part of the benefit of the mediteranean
diet may be due to the phytates in these grains which binds the iron.
That role, I hope, is fulfilled by tea in my diet, since I drink 4 to
6 litres per day. Here is a cite for some of iron binding info.
-- Martin
Deficient dietary iron intakes among women and children in Russia:
evidence from the Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey.
Kohlmeier L; Mendez M; Shalnova S; Martinchik A; Chakraborty H; Kohlmeier M
Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Am J Public Health, 88(4):576-80 1998 Apr
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the iron sufficiency of the Russian
diet. METHODS: Data were obtained from 24-hour dietary recalls
conducted in 4 rounds (1992 through 1994) of a nationally
representative longitudinal survey of 10,548 women and children.
Iron bioavailability was estimated via algorithms adjusting for
enhancers (heme, vitamin C) and inhibitors (tannins in tea, phytates
in grains) consumed at the same meal. RESULTS: Dietary iron intakes
were deficient in the most vulnerable groups: young children and
women of reproductive age. Poverty status was strongly associated
with deficiency. After adjustment for enhancers and inhibitors,
estimated bioavailable iron intakes at 3% to 4% of total iron were
inadequate in all women and children. CONCLUSIONS: These dietary
data suggest that Russian women and children are at high risk of
iron deficiency. Grain products rich in phytates, which inhibit
absorption, were the major food source of iron in Russia. High
intakes of tea and low consumption of vitamin C also inhibited iron
bioavailability. Since changes in eating behavior could potentially
double iron bioavailability, educational programs should be explored
as a strategy for improving iron nutriture.
bb
> > Now, if grain had the same effect on humans it could explain why we're
all
> > so goddam fat.
>
> Sorry! But, we are NOT all so goddam fat. In fact, some of us are quite
> skinny. There have been a number of Grain Favorable posts made by other
> callers who show none of the negative effects of grains the Paleolithic
> Wack'O's claim to be true.
Except if you have coeliac disease you forgot to say.
>
> In fact, I directly quoted from one of the Paleolithic Diet Research
> Studies which said point blank that eating Grains in moderation is
perfectly
> harmless for most people.
Yeh, what about the non-most people. Those who can't lose weight on a low
fat grain-based diet. I know John's answer- they're lazy, they're slobs.
Well, some of them do diet correctly and exercise and still can't normalise
their weight. What do you offer them? Nothing I suppose, because you think
they're fat lazy cheats. But you could offer them a Paleodiet. The non-most
people are now what- oo about 50% of people are overweight- pleanty of
non-most people.
bb
Timothy J. Lee <tim...@netcom.com.DELETE-THIS.BIT> wrote in message
news:7sti94$f...@dfw-ixnews14.ix.netcom.com...
> "bb" <bb...@bigpond.com> writes:
> |But you still haven't answered the question as to what YOU think a
> |Paleolithic diet is. You keep telling everyone what you think it is said
to
> |be (a high meat diet), but it obviously isn't that-
>
> What do you consider a paleolithic diet?
There is no single paleolithic diet- just as there is no single Standard
Western Diet. Some people have their favourites. The fact is that true
hunter gatherers are at the mercy of the seasons and the environment.
Therefore their diet varies greatly with geography, with time of year and
with unpredictable variables.
The Inuit diets are one extreme brought on by climate. Man has the
reasonably rare ability to live in all types of climate and live on the
food. We eat the widest range of foods of any animal. The advent of cooking
opened up a whole new world of other food sources as it made the inedible
become edible (Ref: Irvin Liener : Toxic Constituents of Plant Foodstuffs
2nd Ed 1980 CH1). Man is also unique in actively seeking out new foods
simply for the pleasure of different tastes.
Once we have studied existing hunter gatherer diets and lifestyles, and
disease patterns we can compare them to our own and make inferences and
stimulate further research. We can also study the archeological record and
the original inflammatory post of this thread refers to such studies.
As scientists, we should embrace the opportunity to study our forebears diet
and disease patterns. After all, we do not have the answers to most of our
questions. It is quoted that we can only explain 25% of cardiovasculaar
disease by standard risk factors (The French paradox unmasked: the role of
folate.Author Parodi PW Source Med Hypotheses, 49(4):313-8 1997 Oct).
Furthermore, controlled studies of dietary interventions show little effect
for common problems such as obesity (perhaps 6 to 8% long term success I
believe, but most of the list would know more accurately). So, if you think
the Pyramid has all the answers, you're just plain lazy (not the obese
patient).
The newsgroup has in the
> past seen supposed paleolithic diet advocates who advocate a high
> meat diet (using people like the Inuit as examples). Others have
> claimed that low carb dieting was paleolithic... on the other hand,
> tropical hunter / gatherer people probably eat a lot of vegetables
> and fruits, probably getting much more carbohydrates than low carb
> dieters (or Inuit) eat.
All of these are deserving of study in their own right. Then you can make
your own conclusions. Horses for courses.
I'll post my ideas of a paleodiet soon. I think of mine as a Western
Supermarket Based Paleolithic Diet with too many nonpaleo treats!
Martin E. Lewitt
>> of land and the productivity was such that it enabled civilations to
>> developed, however, lifespan decreased due to malnutrition, famines
>> and communicable disease. Pre-agricultural life span was not exceeded
>> until the advent of modern public health measures late in the last
>> century.
>Wrong way round. Civilization, i.e. setllement in "cities," comes first.
>Agriculture follows.
How is this relevent to the lifespan decreases brought about by the
increased concentrations of people enabled by agriculture?
>Think hanging gardens of Babylon: the plants grown on the terraces of the
>buildings of the trading settlement. The trading village of Jericho exists
>at a level below the farming village of Jericho, which means it existed
>first.
Hanging gardens aren't agriculture? Mesopotamia (sp?) wasn't a fertile
agricultural area. A small trading settlement preceded a larger
farming settlement, are you saying that the peoples they were trading
with did not engage in agriculture (egyptians, phoenecians?)?
>Today, as then, cities are intensively gardened. Tokyo and Manila are both
>about 1/3 farmland by area. Manhattan Island has thousands of farms, mainly
>in marijuana, cactuses, bean and other sprouts, and flowers, all high value
>crops.
I don't see how any of this (while interesting, thanx!) is relevant to
the issue raised, or supports your point, are you chiefly interested
in distinguishing gardening from agriculture? I doubt trading settlements
could get very large before agriculture, though hunter/gatherers
might be productive enough to support small specialized settlements on trade
routes or at special resource centers like mines. -- Martin
John Gohde
news:7svfrf$j...@llama.swcp.com...
> In article <7surjj$gg9$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Martin E. Lewitt <lew...@swcp.com> wrote in message
> >> John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> >Martin E. Lewitt <lew...@swcp.com> wrote in message
> >> >> The studies that claim to establish meat as a heart health risk do
> >> >> not establish the meat is a risk factor when carb consumption is
> >> >> low
> >> >
> >> >That reminds me ... Proponents of the Paleolithic Diet are quick to
> >> >subscribe to a lot of wack'o beliefs!
> >> >
> >> >Like the Wack'O statement you made above.
> >>
> >> If you have studies that show meat as a risk factor on a low carb diet,
> >> please reference them. Or is Wack'O a synonym for "true" in your
lingo.
> >
> >I am getting rather tired of being the only person posting citations. I
> >have posted over 100 abstracts and or hyperlinks to this newsgroup this
> >year. So, for now on ... try looking them up in Medline yourself!
>
> They are NOT there which is the basis for my original statement which
> you called Wack'O, apparently without basis.
They are there. Either you do not know what you are doing (A good
possibility) or you do not agree with their conclusions, or you are using
the "Stalling" Tactic in dealing with their conclusions.
I have been over this before with the High-Protein Dieting nuts. These
idiots are not remotely interested in good health or good nutrition. All
they want to do is lose weight. By virtue of the fact that they have a
problem losing weight, and even have weight to lose at all, they do not know
what they're doing.
I am not interested in conversing with anybody who looks like they are
trying to punch their way out of a paper bag. Conversation terminated.
John Gohde, Health Nag
http://www.hcrc.org/faqs/claims.html
http://www.quackwatch.com/
"Quackery has existed since the first knave met the first fool."
--Voltaire
Anyone genuinely interested in diet, nutrition, and nutritional
supplements should take a strong stand against Nutrition Quackery,
Food Faddism, and Nutritional Supplements Quackery anywhere
they see it. If you don't, no one will take your interests seriously.
Quackery is the promotion of a health claim that doesn't have any
basis in published scientific research.
John Gohde
> > I am getting rather tired of being the only person posting citations. I
> > have posted over 100 abstracts and or hyperlinks to this newsgroup this
> > year. So, for now on ... try looking them up in Medline yourself!
>
> You're my hero.
> >
> >
> > > >Carbohydrates also happen to include fruits and vegetables, as well
as
> > > >grains. So if eating fruits and vegetables is also bad for you, what
> do
> > you
> > > >apparently eat?
> > > >
> > > >Meat ... Meat ... Meat!
> > >
> > > Nuts and non-starchy veggies as well.
> >
> > Nuts and non-starch veggies happen also to be carbohyrdrates. Nuts
> contain
> > some incomplete protein too as well as fat.
>
> No, they're not. They are rich sources of carbohydrate. They are not
> carbohydrate. This looseness of thinking will only perpuate your Neolithic
> food myths.
My thinking is right on the mark!
Anybody who knocks eating carbohydrates, and then claims that they like
eating carbohydrates by virtue of that fact that they like to eat certain
food items that contain fair amounts of carbohydrates is Quacky!
Many food items are indeed a mixture of Carbohydrates, Protein, and Fat.
John Gohde
> John Gohde wrote:
> >Nuts ... happen also to be carbohydrates. Nuts contain
> >some incomplete protein too as well as fat.
>
> 80% or more of the calories in a typical nut come from fat
> (no offense intended, John :-).
>
> I don't think it makes sense to think of them as
> carbohydrates, although they do contain some high-fiber
> carb.
The quote that I responded to also said: "non-starchy veggies".
It makes perfect sense to refer to non-starchy veggies as carbohydrates!
You have lost all credibility with me. You don't even know what you are
knocking, when you try to knock it.
John Gohde
news:BLHI3.30073$ei1....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:7std6u$2ni$3...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
> > bb <bb...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> >
>
> > > Now, if grain had the same effect on humans it could explain why we're
> all
> > > so goddam fat.
> >
> > Sorry! But, we are NOT all so goddam fat. In fact, some of us are quite
> > skinny. There have been a number of Grain Favorable posts made by other
> > callers who show none of the negative effects of grains the Paleolithic
> > Wack'O's claim to be true.
>
> Except if you have coeliac disease you forgot to say.
Thank you for making one of my many Excellant Points!
Celiac Disease is an abnormal condition. ALL Food Faddism is started by
twits
with abnormal conditions who go about trying to scare the general position,
just becaused they are pissed that they themselves have to deal with their
abnormal conditon while the general population does not have to.
It should be painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain that the
Paleolithic
Diet is being advocated by a bunch of Celiac's.
> > In fact, I directly quoted from one of the Paleolithic Diet Research
> > Studies which said point blank that eating Grains in moderation is
> perfectly
> > harmless for most people.
>
> Yeh, what about the non-most people. Those who can't lose weight on a low
> fat grain-based diet. I know John's answer- they're lazy, they're slobs.
> Well, some of them do diet correctly and exercise and still can't
normalise
> their weight. What do you offer them? Nothing I suppose, because you think
> they're fat lazy cheats. But you could offer them a Paleodiet. The
non-most
> people are now what- oo about 50% of people are overweight- pleanty of
> non-most people.
Excuse me, but you can lose weight on virtually any diet that cuts back on
total calories consumed.
Michael Sherman
John Gohde wrote:
>Michael Sherman wrote:
>
>> John Gohde wrote:
>> >Nuts ... happen also to be carbohydrates. Nuts contain
>> >some incomplete protein too as well as fat.
>>
>> 80% or more of the calories in a typical nut come from fat
>> (no offense intended, John :-).
>>
>> I don't think it makes sense to think of them as
>> carbohydrates, although they do contain some high-fiber
>> carb.
>
>The quote that I responded to also said: "non-starchy veggies".
>It makes perfect sense to refer to non-starchy veggies as carbohydrates!
John, mellow out! I elided the "non-starchy veggies" part because
I agree with you -- they ARE carbohydrates. What you actually said
was "Nuts and non-starchy veggies happen also to be carbohydrates."
Assuming you're speaking English, that sentence is equivalent
to two statements:
(1) Nuts happen also to be carbohydrates.
(2) Non-starchy veggies happen also to be carbohydrates.
I agree with (2), not with (1).
>You have lost all credibility with me. You don't even know what you are
>knocking, when you try to knock it.
I wasn't knocking anything! I'm a big fan of nuts AND non-starchy
veggies. I just don't consider nuts carbohydrates.
Sheesh.
sherm
jwwright
>
>
> Celiac Disease is an abnormal condition. ALL Food Faddism is started by
> twits
> with abnormal conditions who go about trying to scare the general position,
> just becaused they are pissed that they themselves have to deal with their
> abnormal conditon while the general population does not have to.
>
> It should be painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain that the
> Paleolithic
> Diet is being advocated by a bunch of Celiac's.
>
>
And people who have IBS caused by eating wheat/oatmeal. BTW it's worse
with "whole grain" wheat.
John Mercer
> Ben Balzer <bb...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> > Eaton SB, Eaton SB III, Konner MJ Paleolithic Nutrition Revisited: A 12
> > Year Retrospective on its Nature and Implications. European J. Clinical
> > Nutrition (1997)61,207-216.
>
> TITLE: Paleolithic nutrition revisited: a twelve-year retrospective on its
> nature and implications [see comments]
> AUTHORS: Eaton SB; Eaton SB 3rd; Konner MJ
> AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Anthropology, Emory University, Atlanta
> GA, USA.
> SOURCE: Eur J Clin Nutr 1997 Apr;51(4):207-16,Review. No abstract
> available.
> CITATION IDS: PMID: 9104571 UI: 97258097
>
> Any group who offers up published papers with no abstract available for
> support of their position is suspect.
But you offered up opinions from one that *misrepresents* the published
literature--PCRM.
The gold standard is that the papers themselves--not just the
abstracts--support the claims being made.
> Published papers with no abstract available are not interested in promoting
> science. They are interested in making money.
Like your buddies at PCRM?
> John Gohde, Health Nag
>
> http://www.hcrc.org/faqs/claims.html
> http://www.quackwatch.com/
> "Quackery has existed since the first knave met the first fool."
> --Voltaire
>
> Anyone genuinely interested in diet, nutrition, and nutritional
> supplements should take a strong stand against Nutrition Quackery,
> Food Faddism, and Nutritional Supplements Quackery anywhere
> they see it.
So why did you quote PCRM, John?
> If you don't, no one will take your interests seriously.
>
> Quackery is the promotion of a health claim that doesn't have any
> basis in published scientific research.
Like the health claims of PCRM?
--
John Mercer
David Lloyd-Jones
Martin E. Lewitt <lew...@swcp.com> asks:
> >> of land and the productivity was such that it enabled civilations to
> >> developed, however, lifespan decreased due to malnutrition, famines
> >> and communicable disease. Pre-agricultural life span was not exceeded
> >> until the advent of modern public health measures late in the last
> >> century.
>
> >Agriculture follows.
>
> How is this relevent to the lifespan decreases brought about by the
> increased concentrations of people enabled by agriculture?
How it's relevant is it points out that your "increased concentrations of
people enabled by agriculture" are fictitious. Bogus. They didn't happen.
Increased concentrations of people enabled by trade brought about
agriculture.
Increased concentrations of people happened when traders met, and then
intermediate traders stayed there. These folks then kept the animals, dead
or alive, the seeds, eaten now or later, and from that developed husbandry
and gardening.
> >Think hanging gardens of Babylon: the plants grown on the terraces of the
> >buildings of the trading settlement. The trading village of Jericho
exists
> >at a level below the farming village of Jericho, which means it existed
> >first.
>
> Hanging gardens aren't agriculture?
Hanging gardens are a late form of pre-agriculture. They are like the
gardens of Manila or Tokyo today, families getting by, people with green
thumbs looking after their neighbours. Ur and Babylon were trading centres
while the golden crescent was golden with gold, but before it was golden
with wheat.
> Mesopotamia (sp?) wasn't a fertile
> agricultural area.
Not until very recently, like maybe 4,000 years ago, 2,000 B.C.E.
> A small trading settlement preceded a
larger
> farming settlement, are you saying that the peoples they were trading
> with did not engage in agriculture (egyptians, phoenecians?)?
Exactly.
Egypt or Anatolia are the earliest non-Chinese agricultures, and they only
go to about 4,000 B.C.E. (Phoenicia was much later.) Tool manufacturing in
Africa -- like actual factories, where workers sat in rows churining out
the hammers -- was tens of thousands of years old by then. The French,
natch, had manufactured jewellery over 50,000 years before in the
Aurignace -- without a sprout of agriculture anywhere in sight. (Jewellery
is a sign of both emerging family life and emerging economics. Beads, like
those of the Aurignacian necklaces, have always been trade goods.)
> >Today, as then, cities are intensively gardened. Tokyo and Manila are
both
> >about 1/3 farmland by area. Manhattan Island has thousands of farms,
mainly
> >in marijuana, cactuses, bean and other sprouts, and flowers, all high
value
> >crops.
>
> I don't see how any of this (while interesting, thanx!) is relevant to
> the issue raised, or supports your point, are you chiefly interested
> in distinguishing gardening from agriculture?
I don't quite know what to say about what you can't see, Martin. You have
posed a bunch of aggressive questions based upon an implausible
self-constructed theory of history, and I am simply saying "No clothes, no
clothes." One of the several things you could draw from the Manhattan
example is that cities keep the most value-added agriculture, while spiining
off the rest to the deserted out-back. Think of London and Berlin sending
their poor to farm Ohio.
> I
doubt trading settlements
> could get very large before agriculture, though hunter/gatherers
> might be productive enough to support small specialized settlements on
trade
> routes or at special resource centers like mines.
Uh, exactly. Before agriculture: settlements. Typically twenty or thirty
extended families, maybe a couple of hundred people in good times. Without a
single sowed field or tame animal in sight, just trade and manufacturing.
This last, incidentally, explains the Great Mysteries of all those large
temples and labyrinths in Crete and suchlike places. They aren't temples,
they're bazaars. Anybody who's ever seen modern Akihabara would recognise
ancient Crete instantly. A great industrial centre made up of ten or twenty
thousand families all hustling like crazy.
-dlj.
Ben Balzer
>
> > >Nuts ... happen also to be carbohydrates. Nuts contain
> > >some incomplete protein too as well as fat.
> >
> > 80% or more of the calories in a typical nut come from fat
> > (no offense intended, John :-).
> >
> > I don't think it makes sense to think of them as
> > carbohydrates, although they do contain some high-fiber
> > carb.
>
> The quote that I responded to also said: "non-starchy veggies".
>
> It makes perfect sense to refer to non-starchy veggies as carbohydrates!
No John,
they are veggies not carbohydrate. Let's start again from first year
college. Sucrose is a carbohydrate, glucose is a carbohydrate, fructose is a
carbohydrate, starch is a carbohydrate. A carrot is a veggie that contains
carbohydrate, but it is not a carbohydrate. So it doesn't make sense to
refer to them as a carbohydrate, it only makes sense to refer to them as a
source of carbohydrate (and vitamins etc). Bread for example is a source of
carbohydrate (and of lectins and protease inhibitors). I hope this is clear
now.
You must look beyond protein, fat and carbohydrate if you are ever going to
master the principles of paleoperfection. Spend more time thinking about
vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and antinutrients. Only paleoperfection
has all the answers in one package, and when you realise this I will forgive
you John. But up until now you have been far too cantankerous and smarmy. As
my IQ has increased by 10 points (by rule of thumb) (up to a collosal but
confidential level) since I commenced paleoperfection, I can easily deflect
your puny inferior pyramid-entrapped Neolithic arguments. Resistance is
useless, you must go paleo, you must go paleo.
>
> You have lost all credibility with me. You don't even know what you are
> knocking, when you try to knock it.
How can I ever live without your approval. I think one of your cylinders
might need a new spark plug.
>
>
> John Gohde, Health Nag
>
Ben Balzer
--
"The ideal diet for any animal is that which it eats in the wild. Humans are
no exception."
--
"Ask a dietitian how to lose weight and you'll be told to eat bread, corn,
soy, cereals etc.. Ask a farmer how to fatten a pig and you'll be told to
feed it bread, corn, soy, cereals etc. There is a discrepancy that needs
explanation."
--
"Sigmund Freud is the thinking man's tooth fairy."
David Lloyd-Jones
Ben Balzer <bb...@bigpond.com wrote
> it doesn't make sense to refer to them as and when you realise this I
can easily deflect
> your puny inferior pyramid-entrapped Neolithic arguments. Resistance is
> useless, you must go paleo, you must go paleo.
My view exactly.
Best wishes,
-dlj.
Martin E. Lewitt
>> If you have studies that show meat as a risk factor on a low carb diet,
>> please reference them. Or is Wack'O a synonym for "true" in your lingo.
>I am getting rather tired of being the only person posting citations. I
>have posted over 100 abstracts and or hyperlinks to this newsgroup this
>year. So, for now on ... try looking them up in Medline yourself!
>> They are NOT there which is the basis for my original statement which
>> you called Wack'O, apparently without basis.
>
>They are there. Either you do not know what you are doing (A good
>possibility) or you do not agree with their conclusions, or you are using
>the "Stalling" Tactic in dealing with their conclusions.
I may not know what I am doing. But I can't find them.
>I have been over this before with the High-Protein Dieting nuts.
Why were you going over meat as a risk factor on low carb with the
high protein persons?
> These
>idiots are not remotely interested in good health or good nutrition. All
>they want to do is lose weight. By virtue of the fact that they have a
>problem losing weight, and even have weight to lose at all, they do not know
>what they're doing.
But you must admit that if they are reading this group there is hope
for them, so lets not call them any more names. Perhaps you and I
together can educate them. After all I have earned my knickers by
eating plenty of low carb veggies. I know veggies "ARE" carbs (except
for their DNA, RNA, protein, porphorins (sp?), lipids, glycoproteins,
etc.), but some are MORE carbs than others, especially if you don't
count the fibre. 8-)>
Really, one of the disadvantages of low carb is that is has not
been well studied, unfortunately for all of us that means we must
take a lot of the studies with a grain of salt because they have
not separated high meat and high saturated fat from the negative
influences of high insulin and high glucose and high Calories. It has
been particularly difficult because in our society the people eating
the sat fat and meat, have also been eating the packaged and refined
grains and sweets, so their effects have been difficult to separate
and the conclusions have often been premature and wrong. Witness
the recent evidence showing high carb diets as important risk factors
for breast and prostate cancers, mediated through insulin-like receptors.
This is just the beginning, the researchers are speculating that
they will also find something similar in other cancers, particularly
colon.
So you can't blame us if we are skeptical of studies which say
that meat and sat fat are risk factors for heart disease when these
studies have also failed to control for the same variables. That said,
I am concerned about some of the more basic research that supports
an underlying mechanism for the link to heart disease, the IRON
hypothesis. Meats,especially red, are high in IRON. Saturated
fat evidently increases IRON absorption or storage and unsaturated
fat does not. Iron in the liver has correlation that almost seems
partially causal with cholesterol levels and of course iron is
a source of oxidative stress and iron is often the limiting
factor in bacterial growth in the body (our bodies go to
great lengths to sequester it from bacteria) and of course there
is also a chronic infection hypothesis for cardiovascular disease
because of its correlations with C-reative protein levels and
antibodies to C. pneumonia and H. Pylori and other bacteria.
There might be something to this meat/sat fat risk factor
for heart disease link, however, even if it proves out,
I would like to see if it is still a risk factor when the
significant minority of people who are carriers of the
hemochromatosis gene are controlled for.
In the mean time, as a precaution I am drinking ice tea (reduces iron
absorption, just like the phytates in grains) and substituting nuts and
white chicken meat for some of my red meat consumption.
-- Martin
Mike Tyner
John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> It makes perfect sense to refer to non-starchy veggies as carbohydrates!
>
> You have lost all credibility with me. You don't even know what you are
> knocking, when you try to knock it.
Celery, broccoli, cabbage and lettuce are non-starchy
vegetables. You may call them carbohydrates if you like,
but that doesn't make them good sources of carbohydrates.
Why would we care about losing credibility with you?
-MT
Mike Tyner
by diabetics who are controlling their blood sugar
by restricting carbs.
The carbs in almonds may generate the same
glycemic response (area under the BG curve,)
but for many of us it's spread out over time and
much less likely to "spike" BG than an equivalent
amount of carbs in flour or sugar.
-MT
Michael Sherman <sh...@symdyn.com> wrote in message
news:37f3118e$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> John Gohde wrote:
> >Nuts ... happen also to be carbohydrates. Nuts contain
> >some incomplete protein too as well as fat.
>
> 80% or more of the calories in a typical nut come from fat
> (no offense intended, John :-).
>
> I don't think it makes sense to think of them as
> carbohydrates, although they do contain some high-fiber
> carb.
>