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

Paleo diet - Page 13

post #181 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Yeah, but being so carb deprived for so long, you'd figure her body was absorb the mo-fo out of any ascorbic acid!
http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf These two men ate a diet of 100% meat for the course of 12 months. Their blood pressures both dropped, there was no evidence of kidney damage or diminished function, and vitamin deficiencies did not appear, nor did any mineral deficiencies.
post #182 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm84321 View Post
There have been exactly four experiments in the medical literature in which the goal was to induce scurvy in human subjects--in one, four, twenty, and four subjects respectively. In each case, the goal was accomplished and the diets were carbohydrate and/or sugar-rich. I can't find the studies themselves for public access on the internet, but they are referenced to in Kenneth J. Carpenter's The History of Scurvy and Vitamin C if you are interested. http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledg...e_locale=en_GB
i wish i had access to the studies you are referencing to, but this still doesnt prove your point that eating lots of carbohydrates cause vitamin C deficiency even up to the point of scurvy again you'd have to show 1) subjects take an average amount of vitamin C 2) subjects got scurvy by eating massive amounts of carbohydrates having a carbohydrate rich diet doesnt prove anything. you'd have to control for the level of vitamin C in their diet, which it appears from what you've said about the study to have not been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm84321 View Post
Let's just use common sense for a second here: From an evolutionary standpoint, would it make sense for a vitamin deficiency related disease to be caused in humans by eating a diet rich in fat and protein (you know, the stuff found in nature)? Or, would it be a bit more reasonable to assume that the addition of some other substance, like white sugar and flour, that is a processed and refined product, would be causing these complications?
this is a terrible argument i hope you can see why. plausible even from an evolutionary standpoint doesnt prove anything. it's just pure conjecture. you'd have to show studies that proves your point. evolution for certain genes take millions of years. other genes matters of several years. it depends on how selective the pressure is. if wheat was so harmful you'd see some form of adaptation by now
post #183 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post
you'd have to show studies that proves your point.
Well, here you go: http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf
post #184 of 454
Does anyone else find MM's avatar ironic?
post #185 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMRouse View Post
Does anyone else find MM's avatar ironic?

The irony was my intention.
post #186 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm84321 View Post
http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf

These two men ate a diet of 100% meat for the course of 12 months. Their blood pressures both dropped, there was no evidence of kidney damage or diminished function, and vitamin deficiencies did not appear, nor did any mineral deficiencies.

And? I mean, you do realize man is one of the mammals that cannot synthesize their own Vit. C whereas most others can? Thus eating the products of say, cows, will give one Vit C.
post #187 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm84321 View Post

This in no way shows what he was asking for.
post #188 of 454
ok i've read the study what??? i dont understand why you quoted this study. i asked for a study that showed subjects that consumed an average amount of vitamin C but vitamin C deficiency was induced by feeding them high amounts of carbohydrates. you even claimed ppl can get scurvy this way. you showed me a study from 1930 (vitamin C wasnt even discovered until 1932, so how would they know about vitamin deficiency when they couldnt even measure it? they didnt even mention how they tested vitamin deficiency) that had two men eat only meat for a year and had no vitamin deficiency. we've known that for ages. eskimos barely eat any plant matter, but they get sufficient vitamin C from uncooked meat.
post #189 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
And? I mean, you do realize man is one of the mammals that cannot synthesize their own Vit. C whereas most others can? Thus eating the products of say, cows, will give one Vit C.
And I am offering you contrary evidence that being "carb deprived", as you put it, "for so long" will not cause any kind of vitamin or mineral deficiencies as you've purported it will from the study you've provided. And even if it somehow did, which it doesn't, the benefits of children who suffer from epilepsy that go on ketogenic diets would surely outweigh any adverse effects of ascorbic acid absorption. Yes, you can get vitamin C in very small quantities from consuming animal products, and that's probably all you really need anyway.
post #190 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post
ok i've read the study what??? i dont understand why you quoted this study. i asked for a study that showed subjects that consumed an average amount of vitamin C but vitamin C deficiency was induced by feeding them high amounts of carbohydrates. you even claimed ppl can get scurvy this way. you showed me a study from 1930 (vitamin C wasnt even discovered until 1932, so how would they know about vitamin deficiency when they couldnt even measure it? they didnt even mention how they tested vitamin deficiency) that had two men eat only meat for a year and had no vitamin deficiency. we've known that for ages. eskimos barely eat any plant matter, but they get sufficient vitamin C from uncooked meat.
You were criticizing my argument that from an evolutionary standpoint it makes more sense that vitamin deficient related diseases would be caused by the presence of refined carbohydrates than a diet high in fat and protein. You then said I would need a study to prove that this was true, and I provided you with one that shows a diet of 100% meat will not produce any sort of vitamin related diseases. I referenced the book in which the studies you asked for about scurvy induced in individuals with high carb diets were conducted, but told you I had no access to them online. I think you are confusing the two requests you made.
post #191 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm84321 View Post
Let's just use common sense for a second here: From an evolutionary standpoint, would it make sense for a vitamin deficiency related disease to be caused in humans by eating a diet rich in fat and protein (you know, the stuff found in nature)? Or, would it be a bit more reasonable to assume that the addition of some other substance, like white sugar and flour, that is a processed and refined product, would be causing these complications?

You are making the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is "natural" does not make it good, nor does the fact that something is "unnatural" make it inferior or bad.

Even ignoring that, let me ask you a question. At what point does something become "unnatural"? Where is this line you use to define these things?
post #192 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm84321 View Post
You were criticizing my argument that from an evolutionary standpoint it makes more sense that vitamin deficient related diseases would be caused by the presence of refined carbohydrates than a diet high in fat and protein. You then said I would need a study to prove that this was true, and I provided you with one that shows a diet of 100% meat will not produce any sort of vitamin related diseases.
.

I hope you are a liberal arts major and this isn't the methodology they teach in science courses these days.
post #193 of 454
Thread Starter 
PALEO DIET
post #194 of 454
Quote:
Even ignoring that, let me ask you a question. At what point does something become "unnatural"? Where is this line you use to define these things?
I don't really like the terms "natural" and "unnatural". To an extent, everything can be classified as natural. Heroine and cocaine are "natural"--they both are derived from plants--but just because it is derived from something that was found in nature doesn't necessarily make it good or bad, as you've pointed out. I think the issue, in the case of drugs, comes when you start isolating alkaloids, and take the substance of it's "natural" context. It's the same idea with sugar and flour--both substances derived from plants: sugarcane and grain, respectively. Once you strip the fiber, and refine the sugar and starch, you are taking the nutrients out of their original form, and this is where you can start to get into trouble. The composition of whole foods is not just some sort of accident. The primary example is the fiber that is packaged with the sugars found in fruit: it is there for a reason, and it serves a distinct purpose in the digestion and metabolization of what you are consuming. Take the fiber away and just eat the sugar and you are, in my definition, eating something nature did not intend for you to, i.e., something "unnatural".
post #195 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm84321 View Post
You were criticizing my argument that from an evolutionary standpoint it makes more sense that vitamin deficient related diseases would be caused by the presence of refined carbohydrates than a diet high in fat and protein. You then said I would need a study to prove that this was true, and I provided you with one that shows a diet of 100% meat will not produce any sort of vitamin related diseases. I referenced the book in which the studies you asked for about scurvy induced in individuals with high carb diets were conducted, but told you I had no access to them online. I think you are confusing the two requests you made.
you are right and i did confuse the two your argument still is not the correct one. you didnt show that refined carbohydrates cause vitamin deficient related diseases due to the way humans have evolved. you've shown that lack of carbohydrates do not cause vitamin deficient related diseases. disproving the negative does not prove the positive. i've already mentioned that we've know for awhile that people can survive on basically just meat alone. we've seen this in greenland. we've seen this in northern canada and beyond. this doesnt help your case. bringing out a study from 1930s when nobody knew anything about vitamins also doesnt help your case you've also yet to show anything in regards to an evolutionary standpoint. to say something is due to an evolutionary standpoint especially when talking about humans is a very very big claim and is honestly very difficult to prove. you can make conjectures and try to derive support for it by looking at what we have today, but no single study can show this. we can say things like during the past decade or so antibacterial medicine have become much less effective because certain bacteria strains have developed resistance, but this is only because their lifespan is so short we can observe the effects of physical expression of genetic mutations across many generations.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Paleo diet