or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Paleo diet
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Paleo diet - Page 9

post #121 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Is he making one with a Paleo option? Please to advise.
Actually, cooking sous vide would be welcomed highly by the Paleo folks. Searing meats at high temperatures may cause carcinogenic agents called heterocyclic amines to be produced on the skeletal muscle; that's why they advocate eating meat cooked at low temperatures, such as sous vide. But who the hell wants to eat sous vide pork belly with flabby skin?
post #122 of 454
my understanding of heterocyclic and polycylic amines is that while they are dangerous to rodents in ridiculous amounts no connection has been shown in population studies and in vivo studies were inconclusive also while hcas and pcas are carcinogenic, maillard reactions produce molecules that are antioxidative. i know i keep bombarding you with more articles, but i've been following this blog for awhile and there's good information written more sources and brevity than i could write. http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-...ooked-1e.shtml this is from the government (gasp!) http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...k/cooked-meats
post #123 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post
my understanding of heterocyclic and polycylic amines is that while they are dangerous to rodents in ridiculous amounts no connection has been shown in population studies and in vivo studies were inconclusive also while hcas and pcas are carcinogenic, maillard reactions produce molecules that are antioxidative. i know i keep bombarding you with more articles, but i've been following this blog for awhile and there's good information written more sources and brevity than i could write. http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-...ooked-1e.shtml this is from the government (gasp!) http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...k/cooked-meats
I agree. It's really not something I worry too much over.
post #124 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm84321 View Post
Actually, cooking sous vide would be welcomed highly by the Paleo folks. Searing meats at high temperatures may cause carcinogenic agents called heterocyclic amines to be produced on the skeletal muscle; that's why they advocate eating meat cooked at low temperatures, such as sous vide. But who the hell wants to eat sous vide pork belly with flabby skin?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Please for to advise: I shall be crisping up some pork belly confit I made last weekend. Does the sous vide machine remove the paleo?
post #125 of 454
Thread Starter 
PALEO DIET
post #126 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicola View Post
The problem with that is explaining why develop agriculture?

If you think of the amount of work required to hand clear a field. Plant grains. Plus everything up to the harvest. Why would anybody do all that work without already eating grains?

It wasn't like they went to the local supermarket flirted with the cute sample girl. Tried the grains and thought this would be good.

It's no different then keeping animals. At some point somebody decided it was easier to keep animals then to hunt.


They weren't running corn fed cattle ranches so needed the grains for animal feed.

true, but the qualifier is "much"- people were eating some grains, really hard to quantify, but you have to figure that it was only for a few weeks a year at the most, before agriculture. my understanding is that one of the features that was bred into domestic grain was storability, that natural grains fall of the stalks and start deteriorating.

100 years ago, and in much of the world today, grains are 90% of most people's diets. that is not how we evolved.
post #127 of 454
it might not have been how we ate 10000 bc to 2.6 mill years ago, but this is really no argument. you would have to show that grains are harmful to the modern human. simply because it wasnt available for human consumption a long long time ago doesnt necessarily mean its harmful for humans today
post #128 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post
it might not have been how we ate 10000 bc to 2.6 mill years ago, but this is really no argument. you would have to show that grains are harmful to the modern human. simply because it wasnt available for human consumption a long long time ago doesnt necessarily mean its harmful for humans today

Never-mind the fact that the argument is based on a false assumption that humans stopped evolving roughly when the Paleolithic age ended. This is completely incorrect, as evolution is an ongoing process and is still happening today.
post #129 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post
you would have to show that grains are harmful to the modern human.
Celiac disease?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMRouse View Post
Never-mind the fact that the argument is based on a false assumption that humans stopped evolving roughly when the Paleolithic age ended. This is completely incorrect, as evolution is an ongoing process and is still happening today.
I've never heard anyone make such an argument.
post #130 of 454
Can we all stop pretending that humans of this period were somehow to be idealized? The average lifespan was in the 30's. Modern humans live far longer and healthier lives. That's with our genetically modified, non organic, processed foods and all.
post #131 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm84321 View Post
I've never heard anyone make such an argument.

Saying that humans evolved to eat a diet similar to our ancestors of the Paleolithic age, is making that argument. It assumes that we have not been adapting since to the modern diet.
post #132 of 454
Sorry double post.
post #133 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMRouse View Post
Can we all stop pretending that humans of this period were somehow to be idealized? The average lifespan was in the 30's. Modern humans live far longer and healthier lives. That's with our genetically modified, non organic, processed foods and all.
The only real part of our ancestor's lives I think anyone is trying to idealize is their diet, which is certainly not the reason they may have had a lower life expectancy than modern day man. This can be attributed to the vicissitudes of living in nature, the dangers of hunting/predators, infant mortality rates, and a lack of acute medical care. They did not die of coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes from the food that they ate. While it may be true that they had a shorter total life span, it was probably a healthier one than that those of typical Americans today: quality vs quantity. Today, we may be living older, but we are also dying longer.
post #134 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMRouse View Post
Saying that humans evolved to eat a diet similar to our ancestors of the Paleolithic age, is making that argument. It assumes that we have not been adapting since to the modern diet.
No, it does not. At some point humans very well will adapt to any diet necessary to survive by way of evolution, however, 2 million years of eating plants and animals vs 10,000 years of agriculture does not allow adequate time for us to be fully capable of adapting to such a diet. Relatively speaking, grain products in the human diet are a novelty. We simply haven't had enough time.
post #135 of 454
400 years ago most people's diets consisted mostly of carbs and they weren't as likely to be obese as we are. We just have so much productive ability and food is so cheap for us that we find it easy to eat too much.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Paleo diet